Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

“	Jim Jones, David Koresh and Meir Kahane do not typify Christianity and Judaism in the eyes of the civilized West, but those same eyes are prone to see Osama bin Laden and Mullah Muhammad Omar as typifying Islam	”
—Richard Bulliet

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

Persecution[edit]

Thank you. I also created categories concerning the persecution of Copts, Greeks, Kurds, and Sami. If you wanted to nominate these categories for renaming, which I would be supportive of, perhaps they could be renamed something along the lines of Category:Anti-Assyrian sentiment, Category:Anti-Yazidi sentiment, etc? There are already a number of categories with that naming convention, such as Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment or Category:Anti-Polish sentiment. Would that work? Solar-Wind (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Solar-Wind I'm figuring this out myself. It seems to me that the anti-Xxx formula is pretty Wikipedia friendly and I think that it's a matter of juggling this with the way terms are used in sources. I guess that categories are forms of article titles so I guess that uses in reliable sources also become relevant. Thanks for getting back on this. GregKaye 18:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Help in taking over arbitration of a dispute?[edit]

Hello GregKaye, Based on my reading of your user page, I have gotten the impression that you may have expertise on Israel. Therefore and together with the fact that you are the only person whom I know to have an interest in Israel, I thought you may be able to provide some much needed perspective in a dispute. I was hoping you would help take over arbitration on an article where I feel my limited experience means that I am no longer able to help in carrying the discussion forward. I think if I carried on I would be doing a disservice to the other editors but mostly to readers as it is regarding insertion of a statement into the lead. I am also starting to question if I am using wiki policy in the right way when deciding if a sentence is a statement of fact. It is a very hot issue and the article is part of active arbitration remedies. I will not discuss the merits of the issue here but just ask that your read through the dispute and provide some valuable insight. I understand you may be busy so I completely understand if you say no. If you decide to go for it, let me know so that I can disengage from the conversation. The issue is the inclusion of a statement into the lead of the main Israel article. It is being discussed here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel#Discussion_on_actual_wording

Regarding your post on my talk page, I will reply when I catch my breath. Mbcap (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap Thank you for this. In the occasionally fast moving world of WP it can be important to keep breathing. GregKaye 14:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]

Hello, GregKaye. After you were banned from interacting with P-123 just a few days ago, you have "thanked" the user twice, and also thanked some other editors for P-123-related edits. It's difficult to take that as simple gratitude, and it's certainly interaction. You need to stop poking holes through your IBAN right now. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC).

Understood. My edits, while breaking rules, were all in good faith. GregKaye 08:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Bishonen following other appreciated discussion I just wanted to leave open notification here of my plan to delete rather than archive this thread. GregKaye 11:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Some falafel for you![edit]

Thanks for you efforts to make the Israel article a NPOV article. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Gouncbeatduke and בתאבון to you to. I am personally all for the fair highlighting of the Criticisms of Israel but this needs to be done in fair ways and with fairly presented guidelines based content. GregKaye 08:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit count[edit]

Something you said got me digging in the tools. On one article you have 468 edits (5.68% of total) and I have 432 edits (5.25% of total) right now. Your first edit was 8 Sept and mine Aug 10. I checked several other users and found one recently active one at almost 3%, several at 0.5% and the highest I could find was at 28.74%. http://tools.wmflabs.org/usersearch/index.html Legacypac (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac I can't specifically remember what this relates to. My personal view is that the content of your edits has been consistently good. GregKaye 07:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

We've both been accused of owning the same article - those are the real stats. Tonight, I just used the same tool and found 55% of the edits on Boko Haram - an astonishing 2438 edits - are by one user. It's missing a bunch of stuff (UN Security Council designation as terrorists, links to al-qaeda pledge to ISIL, declared a caliphate to start) and needs a serious fact check and rewrite. Legacypac (talk) 08:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac I think that such statistics may be relevant in substantiating any specifically asserted allegation of own but that the statistics, in themselves, proves nothing. Relevant OWN issues for you have related things like consultation issues such as when you made good faith and I think beneficial changes to article structure (which have largely been kept) but without consultation or when you've acted on suggestions in talk page on issues like archival settings. I appreciate that other editors may break these rules left and right but reporting back I think is a good practice ideal. I did not think that your previously expressed views on responses to gratitude were appropriate. My personal view has long been that there should be an emphasis on resolution and reconciliation in regard to editor and administrator intervention. There are editors that come who seem to me to be extremely prone to conflict and unreasoned argument and I think that, sometimes, it can be all too easy to respond in kind. Especially in a case where your argument may be right it can be easy to, contrary to your normal behaviour, respond harshly. GregKaye 09:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I've taken such comments to heart and have moderated my approach to sound much calmer. I think that shows in the ANi just closed for example. Don't harp on stuff from months ago. I changed archive settings to longer once at your suggestion. It didn't stick - no big deal. I don't archive threads as quickly as before or if I've been involved in the thread. I'm not holding your ill conceived suggestion to impose sanctions against me, or your encouraging a disruptive highly offensive editor to engage in areas I edit when I've being ignoring him for months. I pointed out the stats after you almost called me the primary editor of an article and because we get accused of own regularly. Look we think very much alike on policy and there is no reason we need to criticize each other. There are plenty of editors who are happy to do attack us both and they seize on any perceived criticism by anyone to build on. Legacypac (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac In many cases I regard you as the benchmark against which calmness should be measured and the issue for which you gained the diplomacy barnstar or whatever it was I regard as stunning. I only mentioned the issue of the archive settings to illustrate the point which I hope, as a friend, you can get. I agree with your idea of the move but not the way it was conducted. Please be aware that this kind of thing has been known to grate with editors and I am mentioning this with good faith in the hope that you get the point. Yes it was ill conceived. A genuinely highly disruptive editor has no place in Wikipedia. The article is very widely contributed to by many editors and I regard you as one of the greatly valued movers and shakers of the article. Your infobox and headings developed have, IMO, been second to none as far as contributions to the article go but, in the second case, I don't think that it should be down to other editors to establish consensus approval of the changes made. The stats tool looks really useful. In talk page stats, while you make a moderate 6% of contributions I possibly came as second highest contributor at ~16% of total contributions. I can live with that. Other editors may edit and argue in extreme ways and this lays people open to criticism. The best way not to have criticisms stick is to do no wrong. When I asked for reasons that I might be given a topic ban I do not think that there was anything that any editor would have had to say. I have made my mistakes, which I think in the Wikipedia scheme of things, were relatively minor, and have learned my lessons.

I have seen other editors work in a partisan type of way which sickens me. My hope is that Wikipedia will take a firm line on issues like canvassing and other abuses. We will see.

There have been times of pressure in WP and I have previously left messages saying things like thanks for the thanks. Hopefully those times have past. Its a new year. I foresee that we may have a less confrontational talk page. Let's see what happens. GregKaye 18:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Signature[edit]

GregKaye you still need to change you signature to your new name, at the moment it links to your old name User:Gregkaye and User talk:Gregkaye and then is redirected back to your new name User:GregKaye. -- PBS (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry PBS. I think that I made the wrong changes when looking at this last time. Do I need to go back over old edits to make changes? Some discussions have been/ may have been collapsed. GregKaye 07:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Everytime I click your name to get to your talk its redirected correctly, so I see no value in editing old comments. Legacypac (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Only if you want to. As Legacypac says the redirects work. -- PBS (talk) 12:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

A question for you[edit]

see Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#Requested move December 2014 -- PBS (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Good call, thanks. GregKaye 13:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

As it happens I do not think any muppet will be jumping up and down at this move, but as an involved editor you should not have made it. It should have been obvious from my posting that I intended to close it as soon as I though enough time had passed for those who wished to express an opinion on my proposed dab extension had been given time to express an opinion. We have seen contested pre-emptive moves in this area and making one yourself means that in future you will not be able to criticise such move without exposing yourself to accusations of hypocrisy. -- PBS (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

PBS The only thing that I have been wanting is to edit articles, as I see it, so that they will be free of POV. I push had been made to close discussion immediately after another editor had raised another option. I didn't agree with the content but that was immaterial. The old quote comes into play, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I was happy with my actions as a way to give options to either continue the discussion or shut it down at admin's discretion. As an involved editor I made a consensus move in a transparent way on the understanding that further discussion might modify or revoke the move. I do not see that I have been compromised here. GregKaye 19:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

MOS:DASH[edit]

Hello. Please consider moving the two pages, 'Category:Islamist terrorist incidents, 2000-2009' and 'Category:Islamist terrorist incidents, 2010-2019' to 'Category:Islamist terrorist incidents, 2000–2009' and 'Category:Islamist terrorist incidents, 2010–2019', respectively. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Omnipaedista I have no objection to other's making the moves but, while my writing formating of the category wording was not intentional, you are asking the wrong person. I think that substantial content in MOS is utterley unsubstantiated especially in regard to the hyphenation of years. See the thread I started, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 161#antiquated use of dashes?, for more details. GregKaye 15:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

For the moment this policy is the status quo. You simply choose to arbitrarily ignore it. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Omnipaedista there is policy on clear issues such as NOR and NPOV that makes coherent sense and there is policy such as in the case of MOS:DASH that, in many cases, seems to me to fly in the face of real world usage. Surely the editors breaking NOR and NPOV are those that continually push for the preservation of the use of dashes in MOS against real world usage. GregKaye 15:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a clear distinction between core policy and style guidelines. MOS:DASH is a style guideline, so violating it is not a big matter. I just want to note that as long as a style guideline (part of Wikipedia's "house style") is the status quo, not following it is technically a violation of it (see also WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and WP:CON). --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Omnipaedista I honestly think that there are better things for editors to do than to spend time chasing after and changing grammatical issues that fly in the opposite direction of real word use. It makes no sense to me. I just don't like things that I personally think make Wikipedia look antiquated and silly. I don't object to the use of the dash if that's what people choose to use and am happy to support editors in this choice. GregKaye 16:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Style is not just about making articles look pretty. Style has semantic meaning. There are always good reasons behind English Wikipedia's guidelines. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Omnipaedista The only difference that I see between "2000-2009" and "2000–2009" is that the first is readily searchable. I don't see that making a change at this stage will be worth the effort. GregKaye 17:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The semantic meaning here is "range value": Dash#Ranges of values. --Omnipaedista (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Omnipaedista You have supplied a useful reference to both "En dash range style" and "Hyphen range style". I agree that, the semantic meaning here is "range value" but, as is clearly indicated by trawls of sources, it is a semantic meaning that is most commonly conveyed with the use of hyphens. GregKaye 06:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Deleted comment here by Omnipaedista. I tend to give up when editors start quoting Latin.

If you want to continue to argue this point please do so in English. This is an English Wikipedia that works in the context of English sources, sources that primarily use hyphens to convey range value. "2000-2009" and "2000–2009" have the same semantic meaning. They are just stylised, as I see it, to trends of different times. GregKaye 07:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The point of the comment you deleted was this: when editors edit their own website they can use whatever convention they like. When editors edit Wikipedia, they are to follow Wikipedia's conventions. I have just moved the above-mentioned categories. --Omnipaedista (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Omnipaedista: GregKaye and I have had our differences (one might say nothing but differences), but I struggle to see why you find this a battle worth fighting. Prominently displayed from the top of the MoS page you linked is the following: This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Greg already provided a reason to ignore this (quite silly) rule, and I suggest that your time would be better served doing absolutely anything else. VQuakr (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

VQuakr Thank you

@Omnipaedista: This is also point which can also be fairly applied to newspapers and books. Please do not misrepresent. I was pleased that you previously noted that this issue "is not a big matter". I noted as first thing in my initial reply that "I have no objection to other's making the moves" and yet we have had this long conversation. No substantial change has been made. Everything is as intelligible as it was. GregKaye 07:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Opinions at ISIS/ISIL/IS requested move[edit]

You need to move your expressed opinion up out of the "Further discussion" section or it may be missed by the closing admin. Most of the comment can stay there (just change "oppose" to "comment") and place a new opinion (presumably oppose) up above in the survey part along with a brief reason for your opposition to the move. -- PBS (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

PBS thanks for this again. sorry to have left you with this hassle. GregKaye 20:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Homosexuality[edit]

Hi, the editor raising the issue at ANI was the same editor avoiding a block. This is a long-term problem editor from South America who has previously been blocked numerous times for trolling such pages. They are quite aware that their behaviour is an issue and so WP:DENY is the best route here. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye, there are some editors so disruptive over a period of time that it is senseless to negotiate with them. Kudos for assuming good faith, but this time it's not going to work. Jehochman ^Talk 15:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Jehochman thanks for the unwarranted Kudos . Not that it matters but I had assumed a mixture of Bad faith and delusion. I support strong action by anyone prepared to soil their hands in dealing with these people but, regardless of this, I think it worth questioning approach. AN/I has a habit of shutting down discussion IMO and I am less than convinced that this is always the best way to proceed. My remarks are more comment than criticism and am pleased that admin Black Kite stepped in to validate the close. GregKaye 16:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

"Islamist"[edit]

The main problem with the usage of words such as "Islamist" is that there is a huge misconception in western world that thinks Islam is one monolithic thing, when in reality Islam has may branches and interpretrations. When you place such a suffix as "-ist" it only perpetuates this misunderstanding. 80.43.207.148 (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

80.43.207.148 Understood. The alternative is to used lesser used words like "jihadist" which runs into problems in that many people with Mohammedan faiths do not regard extremists as following anything like a doctrinally faithful interpretation of jihad. Its in the name of Islam or in the name of an even more specific Mohammedan doctrine. Personally I would prefer us to use the word extremist or similar. GregKaye 19:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

<chuckle>[edit]

Do I detect a taste of sour grapes? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Pdfpdf I recognise your name. In what connection? GregKaye 10:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry. If the connection was not immediate and obvious to you, then I have probably "got it wrong".

Best wishes for a happy and prosperous 2015. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Happy New Year.

Interview for The Signpost[edit]

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Discrimination

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Discrimination for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (jive) @ 20:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Move review[edit]

There is currently a discussion at WP:MR to which you may be associated with. The thread can be found here. Thanks. Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Points raised previously[edit]

Hello Gregkaye. My apologies for the late reply, I was slightly indisposed. Having looked through the points you had previously raised, I will attempt to address them.

Point 1 - "Circus"

• I will discuss this but it is with great displeasure (not at you but for me). I dismissed the points raised as a circus because the titlechange policy stated that we do not take moral or political right into consideration. In spite of this, editors felt compelled to raise the issue in contrary to the aforementioned policy. Though I understand the reasoning, it was felt unnecessary, at least to me. Now to the politics bit. During the cold war, there was a systematic campaign of information warfare which has been documented extensively. This is not seen so favourably now and is something that the people who were involved, are not so proud about. In the end, what is better always prevails. Even without all that information warfare and propaganda, capitalism was still going to come out triumphant in the end. There was no need to de-legitimise the other party then, and there is no need to concern ourselves with de-legitimising ISIL now. This campaign back then and also now, with various stakeholders taking issue with certain things, is what I called a circus. I thought it was obvious, but alas it has been shown that I should qualify all statements. When the information is presented in accordance to our policy, there is little chance it could legitimise this group.

Point 2 - me raising issue at your mention of life taking killers (I am not sure if I did raise an issue but I will assume I did)

• This is because Wikipedia is not a forum on which to discuss the topics at hand. As this is not a forum, it is hardly a problem, if an editor requests that you do not air your views in such a fashion on the article page. You also state your views about the media which respectfully, I must inform you that your views are irrelevant in that regard when it comes to editing an article. We use the words journalists write and you raising your objections about their decision to use the name, frankly is slightly annoying and bordering on a forum discussion. This is why I used the words drivel and empty air. I will refrain from using these words, seen as you do not like them. As they were used without any intent of incivility but rather to clarify reality as seen through the lens of Wikipedia policy, could you recommend alternative words that would be acceptable to you.

Point 3 - your comment on ISIL page with stamp: 11:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree with all the points apart from the aspersion bit. I read the link you posted and I understand what you meant. If aspersions are made, they have to be backed up by evidence which is something I did not do. I apologise for this.

I hope that cleared some of the issues at hand. Regards Mbcap (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Mbcap
  • Even if we just highlight your text: "If I allow the circus surrounding the issue to affect me, it will impact on my contribution to the article" I would hope that you can see that you are dismissing a great number of notable political figures as clowns and jugglers and the like. Is that really how you dismiss people? Again surrounding is a fairly encompassing qualifier. "I dismissed the points raised as a circus." Please do not do things like this. If you have a point to make then make your point.
  • In your first reply you used the word context three times even though I maintain that I kept things in context. Now, again, you quote my mention of "life taking killers" out of context of my original question: "How the hell did journalists come to the decision to ignore the wishes of the majority of the Muslim world so as to follow the preferences of a a group of liberty and life taking killers?" In future occasion I will know to order words like "life" and "liberty" differently so that you will not consistently pluck selective quotations. If you are talking about forum your attack on editor contributions as drivel and empty air go high on the list. Journalists have made decisions of terminological use and these decisions have ignored the wishes of the majority of the Muslim World so as to follow the preferences of a group of "life and liberty taking killers". Arguments were clearly presented and civil responses are required. Again, to keep conversation in context, you said, "If in the future you find anything I write objectionable, then I would say please do not ascribe to malice that which could be explained by stupidity." This is not good enough. For editors to edit Wikipedia they are required to be civil. This is arguably the most basic requirement of Wikipedia and one of its WP:FIVEPILLARS. I presented solid content. There is no relevant explanation or excuse for your unjustified, unfairly and derisory dismissal of this content as "drivel and empty air". You now ask me to "recommend alternative words". Forget the words. Present your arguments so as to address the argument at hand. Say why you think the opposing argument is wrong and why yours is right. You might, if relevant, say why you think an argument is presented unfairly if ever appropriate. Your unsubstantiated attacks are unacceptable in any form of words used. Please try to get the point. Attacks are unacceptable. End.
  • My comment with with stamp: 11:18, 19 January 2015 is here. It was pretty much a reply to your continued aspersion. I have tried to broach this issue with you on a personal basis and yet with repeat incidence I have reverted to direct response on the article talk page as other editors might do. I found the thread that you started with what I consider to be its prejudgemental title "Barn door POV pushing in the lead" to have an extremely lengthy content with I high level of arguing against editors rather than the issue. I objected to this type of methodology on your talk page. You edited my edit adding your comments throughout my content and then, for whatever reason and within this context, you then posted a link to the doctored thread on your talk page. Despite this and despite my statement of weak support for the opposing argument I then, in good faith, added comment to highlight the issue of "the placement of the content of the second paragraph." THIS WAS DONE IN GOOD FAITH. You had asserted, "The other reasons it has gone quite in that thread, is because of the clear ownership issues here and the persistent effort to alienate all editors who wish to make this article neutral." Editors may disagree and editors may expect civil behaviour but this should and does not constitute alienation. If context is important to you then please consider placing your replies to content so that they follow the content that you are replying to. It would make responding a lot easier as otherwise unnecessary efforts would not need to be made to return comments to context. GregKaye 16:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I shall agree to disagree as I do not feel you are willing to take any consideration of the points I have raised. My barn door pov lead talk page section was one of the first things I did on wikipedia. The language used may have been inapropriate but that is simply because I did not know how things worked here. As to the barn door nature of the lead, the lead is quite barndoor POV pushing. I can hold that position and other editors have felt the same way before. As to the alienation, I was referring to P123, Documenterror and the editor who edits the justifications section. Mbcap (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap There is no alienation. There are WP:guidelines that we all need to follow.

I understand but don't fully agree with your assertion about the lead and for this reason I did what I could to keep the discussion that you mentioned open. If any editor here is to address NPOV a starting point might be the presentation in Wikipedia's voice of human rights abuses such as the use of women as slaves and the ethnic cleansing and persecution of communities as having "justifications". GregKaye 17:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye can't respond to the one of your points, but I will. You are lining up with a topic banned editor, a site blocked editor, and a "ban on sight" sock farm. Can you see where this attitude could lead? Inserting long quotes from terrorists justifying their actions is not cool - quite a few editors are deleting the socks crap while you reinsert it? I asked you nicely to undo your insertion, but you did not, and you argue on. Legacypac (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Come on legacypac, this is quite unfair to associate me in such a way. Also what do your edit summaries mean. They always sound like you are trying to deliver a message. I can read your comment on the page, you do not need to write the edit summary the way your do. I re-inserted it, after you deleted it. You have clear ownership issues with that page, who do you think you are closing discussions on the ISIL page. Let that be my evidence for the statement I just made. Those are justifications used by the group and they are documented in reliable sources. As the page is about ISIL, it is entirely appropriate to include that informatino there. Mbcap (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Greg I agree words like drivel and empty air are not appropriate comments. I will henceforth, cease using those words and I apologise for using them. Mbcap (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You, not me, named three editors who you agree with. I'm just noting their status. Any editor can close any discussion. I explained that to you already. I've only done some minor housekeeping to help save editors time. Legacypac (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ No legacypac, you are simply by my impression, the owner of the ISIL page. You close discussions, censor talk page posts by other IP's, you blank other IP's posts (does not matter if they are socks, their comment stays), you have according to me; complete disregard for building an encyclopedia as shown by your revert of my addition of the ISIL portal link and you label others as cyber terrorist, dirty socks and so on. You are here to simply further your agenda and using this encyclopedia as a political advocacy tool. I will not put up with this. You are extremely disrespectful as shown by your attempted bullying on the ISIl talk page regarding the justifications section. You disparage the work of other editors by calling it nonsense. You delete good revertes such as the one of the Abu Bakr Al-baghdadi page because they, by my impression, do not further your own cause in light of your world view. This is not a soapbox or a political think tank. We are here simply to build an encyclopedia. It is just a shame that I do not know my way around here but hopefully someday I will find a way to do away with your bullying, innapropriate manners and strong arming of other editors. I promise you a day will come when every editor will be made felt welcome on the ISIl page or any other related pages. Mbcap (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Well your impression is wrong. You make sweeping assertions, but where are your diffs? I rarely close discussions and only when the close is obvious. I'm fully entitled to do that. It is common to remove all comments by sockpuppets, part of cleanup. A "new" IP showing up to argue the point of a sock banned an hour before is perfectly fine to delete or strike. If we let that stuff stay it just emboldens them to do more damage. There is even a tool to automatically rollback ALL edits by such users. The Cyber-terrorist point is recycled from an ANi's where it was dismissed as nonsense. I'm not bullying you, I asked you to explain the insertion of copyvio off topic material that you said was fine. Now stop your threats and casting of aspirations please. Legacypac (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I have asked an admin to advise me on how to deal with yourself Legacypac. I have tried extremely hard to be civil with you but you are the most unprofessional long standing editor I have ever met on here. Something needs to be done about your clear political advocacy here which is becoming extremely disruptive and is not in line with the encyclopedias long term goals and ambitions. I find it extremely hard to edit here because of your use of the talk pages as a forum and your constant attempts to undermine me on every occasion. You are joined in this task, by what I suspect (this is just my suspicion) is an army of IP's who label me as a duck and harass me as evident from past posts. You are also joined, as is my impression, by your greatest enabler, Gregkaye who allows you to reign supreme on the page. You two constantly support each other, air the same views and treat the talk page as your own discussion forum. This section on this page and also the one on my page, shows how you two constantly tag team me. This is just a guess, but I also find your revert of the ISIL portal link not so long ago, an attempt to lure me into breaking the 1RR so you could report me. That was a wrong edit on your part anyway. Could you please undu yourself. You also use your edit summaries in a way that is not conducive to cordial collaboration between editors. Mbcap (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you for so clearly laying out your agenda.

I don't use IPs or any other accts to edit. Never have, never will. That is a serious allegation completely unsupported by any evidence. You have made a range of inappropriate allegations about me here and elsewhere and you need to stop that now.

I intend to remove more links to that useless portal and hopefully kill off the portal itself eventually as it has long been used mainly for POV pushing. That should be pretty clear from my posts and edits on the topic.

As for alleged tag teaming and undermining you- not true. I imagine it must be hard to push a minority POV that does not meet various WP policies. There are articles at WP I find hugely POV and offensive, but I just avoid those because there is no way I can change them. Legacypac (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone seen my talk page? I'm sure it was here somewhere. What the hell fuck is going on. Mbcap the whole presence of this thread is inappropriate as it was started in response to involved content on your talk page. Legacypac, similarly I have repeatedly asked you to consider the ways in which you join in discussions in threads on my talk page and, in general, I would prefer you not to do it. Mbcap, wtf. I am my own person. I present what I think is right for the presentation of encyclopaedic content in Wikipedia in accordance with its guidelines and in this I am deeply offended that you describe me as someone's "enabler". This, like all other locations in Wikipedia, is not the place for you to air your "impressions". Your actions continue, in your words, to alienate. All you are doing is asserting unsubstantiated vague allusions with no substance, amazing coming from an editor who makes criticisms about empty air. If you think I am an enabler then please read the background to this talk page and the fallacy of your argument will soon become crystal clear. It becomes more clear to me that you present one unsubstantiated criticism and spin after another. Don't come to my talk page saying that you are sorry for past offences while merely continuing your jibes. I stand on my own and will continue to resist your slurs and insinuations. The main person that I have enabled is you. The Barndoor thread had utterly lost its track and It Was Me who gave it a chance to get back on its direction. Legacypac, if there are "articles at WP I find hugely POV and offensive" and you let them alone, then let them alone. If you have points to make about specific contents then make them. I do not want my talk page to become part a battleground. You close discussions with regularity and while, arguably, you are "fully entitled" to do so, it is none-the-less unsettling for editors who see potentially unnecessary closures occurring. If you want to address issues with other editors then please do so on that editor's talk page. Any content henceforth on this threat that is not addressed to me will be deleted. Any attack or unsubstantiated content will be treated similarly. GregKaye 20:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Your recent editing history at Template:Largest cities of Israel shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Regards, “WarKosign” 13:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Full picture[edit]

add: The following relates to content placed on StanMan87's talk page here

You have provided two possible choices: Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and ISIS (Islamist rebel group). I opted to vote for the former, with the acronym of ISIS replacing ISIL when referring to the group not only in the main body of the article, but any article which refers to the group as ISIL so as to match the new title which would be Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. I don't know if this is confusing for you... The "A re-cap for you:" section was to illustrate to RGloucester that he favors the title which provides the least amount of either 1.) Accuracy or 2.) Commonality/Recognition out of all the possible names for the group, and the acronyms associated with them. As for the group not being considered Islamic, this is debatable. What makes Saudi Arabia so different from the Islamic State? I will say that both you and I have completely different views on that little Pandora's box you just mentioned. I will say no more than that. That comment you are referring to was completely 100% relevant. You should be aware that you are calling the article something the group is not which therefore will mislead users. What I mean by this is the designation Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria/Greater Syria/al-Sham will become irrelevant (as if it has already) if the group continues expanding far beyond those regions which they have started doing ever since late 2014, albeit slowly. Algeria, Libya, Egypt (Sinai), parts of the Afghan-Pakistan border and now apparently in Yemen [1] are places where IS has a presence. So this is a very relevant question which has to be looked at when deciding to refer to the article title as anything else except either Da'ish or Islamic State (IS). Are you just going to pretend that IS doesn't exist outside Iraq and Syria to stop it from being renamed Islamic State? That is irresponsible. Sooner or later, if/when IS becomes more prevalent outside Iraq in Syria not only in the regions I mentioned, but even in places like Xinjiang in China or the Caucasus region, having either Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) will no longer be appropriate for the title of the article, unless a disclaimer has been placed as to why Wikipedia will not rename it which will be considered as adhering to a sharp POV, something an Encyclopedia doesn't possess. But you are going to have to find a way to solve that little problem pretty soon. StanMan87 (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

StanMan87 I do not want to get into a long debate here about article titles. Vast content is already being posted on the ISIL talk page. In my post I requested: "Please do not derail the current discussion especially with content that, in my view, neglects to mention relevant Wikipedia article title issues." I think that you are utterly incorrect in your assertion that RGloucester "favors the title which provides the least amount of either 1.) Accuracy or 2.) Commonality/Recognition". Contrary to my RM proposal, Levant has long been regarded to be a relatively highly accurate translation of al-Sham and, considered in isolation, "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" gets more searches and hits than "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria". The main reason that the move is proposed is due to commonality to ISIS. Saudi Arabia is recognised as a state, doesn't run whole communities up mountains, is not known for ethnic cleansing at a historic scale, do you want me to go on? Why the fuck do you mention "Pandora's box" and add that you will not say more. Either speak to editor's plainly or not at all. Don't leave unjustified loose ends hanging. There are many ways in which readers can be mislead and I would argue that two of them were raised when the group described themselves to be both Islamic and a state. I suggest you do some parallel research into dependent territories and such like. Just because a recognised nation has associations in other locations does not mean that a name change is called for. I do not think that your argument makes sense. Burma, as another article example, has not had its name changed to Myanmar. There no pretence and yes we all need to be responsible for the entirety of content. Please do not add unjustified assertion and crystal ball comments here. ISIL/S are currently losing territory in the middle east and its purported growth in other areas seems largely due to the defection of the already converted. I heard the BBC refer to the Sinai group in such terms as an Islamist group with allegiance to ISIL and not as being ISIL themselves. GregKaye 09:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Would you like me to elaborate? I could alter your paradigm on the issue, if you wish. My reservation is that I hold a POV, and I feel it will disqualify me in further discussing this topic. But, I don't plan on editing Wikipedia forever, so I don't really mind what you think. Saudi Arabia decapitates, whips and enforces laws on people such as women, very similar to what the Islamic State/Taliban/Al-Qaeda affiliated groups enforce the population under their control. The Shi'a in Saudi Arabia are not cleansed, rather they are just left completely powerless in the Sunni kingdom. Clerics of Saudi Arabia have made some heinous statements on Jews [2], just as the Islamic State and al-Qaeda make from time to time. The vibe I'm getting is that it is un-islamic when a non-state actor or non-recognized state does these things, but when a state-actor does them it's somehow seen as 'normal', 'ok' or 'justifiable'?... In any sense my main grievance is this: What is 'Islamic' and what is a 'Muslim'.

According to you and the many other predominately western people in Europe, North America and Oceania a 'true Muslim' or a 'moderate Muslim' is what the UN, U.S or a plethora of western leaders and agencies state, what they want a Muslim to behave like, act like. And yet the ones who the West or 'civilized world' declare to be terrorists such as al-Qaeda, Islamic State, Boko Haram etc. are characterized as being 'jihadists', 'islamists', 'radicals', 'fundamentalists', 'ultraconservatives' and a whole range of other labels, except 'Muslims'. So why? Is it becuase they take the Qu'ran literally? The Sunnah literally? If that's the case, why does this then make them non-muslims? Surely anyone who takes something literally must be doing it the proper or 'orthodox' way? So if it is not that alone, than is it because they slaughter innocent lives? What makes a person innocent? Did God not take the lives of many innocents according to the Old Testament/Torah? At Sodom and Gomorrah where people engaged in acts of debauchery, that in western society would be considered normal, such as homosexual activity were they not slain by God and considered 'guilty of sin'?

An anecdote: A fellow that I knew professed to be a Catholic, adhering to the Catholic faith born into a Catholic family. He went to a school run by the Jesuits. I knew his commitment to faith was lackluster, he drinks alcohol and is known to have foregone his virginity before marriage. I asked him why do you call yourself a Christian? His response: The Bible was written 2000 years ago, 'we' aren't 'expected' to follow all of it or parts of it today (21st century). My response was forthright: Then why is it in the Bible in the first place? To be disregarded at your convenience? He really couldn't answer me back. Point is, you cannot pick and choose what you follow, either you follow all of it verbatim, or you are nothing more than a hypocrite. And I guarantee out of the 2 billion that call themselves 'Christians' only 5 million or less actually follow the Bible (Both the Old and the New Testaments) word for word, help the sick, feed the poor, stone homosexuals to death and everything else which is included in the Old Testament package. The same for Muslims, Jews and every other religion in the world based on proselytizing. The rest are just hypocrites. Practice what the religious books state, no matter how heinous, or don't call yourself religious. There is no excuse that it is no longer necessary to kill adulterers just becuase the law of the U.S (for example) says it's not ok and it's the 21st century. No, if you are truly religious and pious, then Gods Will should ascend the law of man, and adultery is met with death. And I know for a fact that the Qu'ran is no different to the Torah or Bible, with plenty of punishment.

Let me leave you with this: How has religion traditionally been spread? With bright pink roses and human right declarations? "Please adopt our faith?" or "Convert or die"? No, with violence, preaching and coercion. Fact: The spreading of Christianity to Europe and the Americas and Islam out of the Arabian Peninsula to North Africa and beyond was bathed in blood. And the Qu'ran and Old Testament was the justification. But I don't see anything in that violence that God wouldn't condone based on the stories of his vengeance and wrath. Just like the Islamic State today, or the Knights Templar of centuries old. And yet at the same time, there are peaceful parts of these religions... Makes no sense. Basically: I consider the Islamic State no more un-Islamic than the majority of Muslims in the west who have no to little facial hair, drink alcohol, smoke, do not wear modest clothing, barely fast during Ramadan, hardly attend prayer and do not know the difference between what is Halal and what is Haram. Like this person [3], go to 6:54. He calls himself a Muslim, and according to you and most westerners, this is what a Muslim is. Yet he is clean shaven which is against the Sunnah, (It is extremely recommended if not obligated to follow the path of The Prophet Muhammad, who had a beard) and has ear piercings which could be considered Bid'ah, as it is an innovation, similar to tattoos which are prohibited as it alters the creation of God. He seems to think there is no violence in Islam, in which case he's wrong. See Qu'ranic verses: 33:60, 17:16, 3:151, 2:216, 2:191, 47:4, 8:12 (There are more if you wish for me to cite them all). All make mention to violence, such as 'smiting' or 'kill'. And these are only from the Qu'ran! I haven't even been quoting the Hadiths yet! So, I ask, what makes the Islamic State un-islamic? Because Ban-Ki-Moon said so? Because Barrack Obama stated so? Because Tony Abbot said so? Because hypocrites say so? People who wish to claim that we live in the modern world and therefore those verses no longer apply, but the peaceful ones, they do? How convenient for the hypocrites. Like many 'religious' people, these hypocrites want the holy texts to fit their pre-established moral framework and way of thinking. So now, I will be eagerly awaiting a response from you, so that with your divine wisdom, you may answer me why the Islamic State is so 'un-Islamic' but why Muslims-In-Name-Only (hypocrites) are actual Muslims that the West continuously props up. StanMan87 (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

StanMan87 I would like it if relevant content is added to relevant in relevant places and that non directly related threads are not hijacked to WP:SOAPBOX your WP:CRYSTALBALLing such that "the term Islamic State (IS) will soon become the most and only viable alternative". This seems to me to be clear POV pushing. I would like you not to misrepresent editors such as RGloucester. Please desist from this kind of behaviour.

When I have talked of 'SIL I have taken considerable care to describe them in relation to other groups with Mohammedan based faiths. Of course I don't condone everything that a Saudi cleric may say any more than I won't condone everything that a British cleric may say. Prejudice bigots and hateful reactionaries exist in a great many places. (Incidentally the video you reference was largely directed at Russian populations with a side note/after thought reference being made to Jews. Why are people, seemingly to me, obsessed with Israel and the Jews in ISIL related connections? You will see at Talk:Israel that I am also keen to keep Israel to account for actions and also reject what I consider to be the PR spin of the use of terms like anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism when these are not clearly descriptive names in connection to Jewish people and Israel).

You mention the way that these groups are labelled in, for instance, the English speaking world. Groups such as those that you mention often describe themselves as Mujahideen yet advocate specifically Offensive jihad. This is despite the fact that many clear interpretations of Jihad consider the term to have a purely defensive nature.

Question. How does a literal interpretation of the Qu'ran justify the killing of a compassionate Japanese man who entered the middle east to plead for the release of another captive? How does it justify ethnic cleansing at a historic scale? How does it justify the killing of a British aid worker? How? I am sure that there are other personal backgrounds that I could go into but these are the ones I know. How? One of your verses says, "..But if they fight you, then kill them.." How does this equate to an Yazidi (for instance) town defending itself and getting massacred??? How? Another of your verses states "So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens." How does this justify the killing of a compassionate Japanese man or a British aid worker? How? What in the world are you talking about?? People say that you can justify just about anything from the texts of religious books but what 'SIL has been doing is in a different league. I suggest, if you do want to pursue religion, that you also research religious doctrines on compassion and love. However so far you have done a good job at presenting facets of a religion that has nothing to do with a god that is both powerful while also being just/loving. If you postulate that there is a heaven and that god could have created any form of world in any form of fashion and to be able to be interventionist to the level described in your texts, then how come different people are born into different situations with variant levels of opportunity of knowing this god? This makes no sense to me.

I do not have, to my knowledge, any form of divine wisdom. All I have to offer is basic common sense and, as is typical, this is more than enough. You make your own judgements as to what a Muslim is. Other people have pushed various views and you may be interested in long standing content at Talk:Muslim#Honesty. Along with honesty, another typically key religious concept is that of justice. Most people in the world inclusive of many people with Mohammedan based faiths regard the British aid worker and the compassionate Japanese man to be innocent. The killing of such people amongst other of 'SIL's atrocities are unjustifiable in the sight of any religion and that includes Islam. This is what has turned so many thinking religious people against this group even more so than against others of similar ilk. How do these actions have anything to do with a god with any kind of heart? GregKaye 14:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to break everything you said bit by bit, or at least the parts worthwhile to respond to. Firstly, you are wrong. It is not pushing an opinion if it is a fact. The Islamic State has expanded to areas outside of Syria and Iraq and will continue to do so. The reason for this is becuase there is no united opposition against them. The U.S and its coalition is very inconsistent. It is aiding an illegal and sectarian Shi'a government in Iraq and tarnishing the Sunni revolutionaries with the same brush as it has tarnished the Islamic State (rightly or wrongly). Yet at the same time, it is opposing an Alawi-dominated government in Syria which has been just as sectarian... Now I am confused. The point is, every single participant wants something different. The Kurds in Iraq want independence. The Americans do not wish independence for them, or the Sunni and Shia regions will fight over independence and Iraq will no longer exist. There will be no stable Iraq. The Iranians want a puppet Shi'a dominated Iraqi government (which it has). They do not wish to overthrow Assad, as it suits there national security objectives. Turkey doesn't want Assad to remain, as he has been seen on clamping down on Sunnis, and using the PYD or Syrian Kurds to launch attacks into Turkey for years. Turkey does not want the Kurds in Syria to become independent, or else a dangerous precedent will be set for the Kurds of Turkey. This is why Turkey, or more correctly, elements in the Turkish armed forces were sympathetic to an Islamic State victory over the Kurds in northern Syria. Saudi Arabia and Qatar again want the overthrow of Assad, and a new Iraqi government. My point is this: each side wants something different. They are not united at all. That is why the Islamic State will expand, though granted, if it expands to much then I could possible see these nations come together. But better they do it now than wait for that moment, wouldn't you agree? This 'coalition' is just not going to work unless Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt (The major players in the region) work together, which just wont happen at all. Now that I have explained this, lets move on to the part on when I stated it was the only 'viable' solution. It is the only viable solution, becuase as IS expands out of Iraq, Syria and even the Levant area, how the hell can you still justify calling it The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant when it has territory, a presence or active outside that geographical area?? How does this make any sense? Unless you had a POV disclaimer stating that We at Wikipedia refuse to call it the Islamic State (group) becuase it would hurt people feelings, it just would look unprofessional and stupid. Ok, moving on!

You asked me how I could justify the execution of IS victims using the Qu'ranic verses. You call them innocent. But this is exactly what I typed above, who decides what is innocent? God killed people that in the 21st century would be seen as innocent. Sodom and Gomorrah. They were killed for engaging in debauchery and decadence. The Islamic State have managed to interpret either some Qu'ranic verses, most likely from the Medina surah or some Hadiths of the Sunnah to justify the killings of those men (the American, British and Japanese journalists/aid workers). I am not a Muslim, so I cannot cite you a verse which condones the act or one that condemns it. I do not pretend to know allot about the religion. If I did, I'd be no better than a hypocrite. To me, the Islamic State has seen these men as being guilty, due to being the citizens of the nations which are bombing it (Japan, UK, U.S) and have decided to kill these people, due to the actions of their respective governments. The Islamic State at the same time, has released 81 Turkish hostages (that I know of, could be more) [4], [5]. Important to note that Turkey has not engaged with the Islamic State as much as other coalition forces, despite sharing a border with IS territory. This has always been a demand of IS to the U.S and the U.K, "stop bombing us or your citizens will be killed". Asymmetrical warfare, it's the only think IS can do to the U.S or U.K as it cannot launch conventional assaults on them.

On the Yazidi Question, looking through the Islamic States perspective, they see them as 'fire-worshipers' or something of the sort which they have equated to polytheism. It is therefore acceptable for Offensive Jihad to be carried out as you stated, through the verse 3:151 "We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve for what they have associated with Allah". I know not what the later part of this verse means. My interpretation is that whatever the Yazidi faith believes as being the creator of the world which is worshiped in Gods place, have associated another idol or deity in Gods place. 8:12 " I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."" this one is more self-explanatory. 47:4 "So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah - never will He waste their deeds." Those whom the Islamic State are fighting through their Jihad fight back. Whether they are Yazidi, Kurds or Turkomen. The IS wish to bring the law of God which is stated in the Qu'ran and is known as the Shari'a. I do not know of any Qu'ranic verse which prohibits spreading the faith by means of the sword, or by setting up an Islamic State to live under. It must be embedded within Islam, considering the Rashidun caliphate, who were led by Muhammad successors spread Islam through expansion and conquests. However, I'm pretty sure in Islam you cannot be forcibly converted. Like it has to be through free will or something. But if you are relegated in society as a second class citizen (dhimmī), I suppose the prospect become more enticing. 4:24, this is the prime Qu'ranic verse used by the Islamic State to justify sexual slavery of the non-muslim women, mainly Yazidi and Kurdish women. "And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess" By "right hands possess", it refers to slaves. "And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. " I don't know what this refers to, whether it still is referring to the slaves or not. Finally, you speak of justice. Justice. The verses above seem not to grant the disbeliever justice. And God may be merciful, but being merciful doesn't always equate to feeling compassion. I want to add something, that what is happening today has happened before. The man Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi who has claimed himself as being Caliph reminds me of Caliph Yazid I who ascended as Caliph some 1400 years ago. He was a brutal man who oversaw the death of Muhammad's grandson and great-grand son (a 6 month old child, or as the legend goes) by beheading both after they had died at the Battle of Karbala. Yazid I exacerbated the schism that caused the Shi'a to emerge from the Sunni. StanMan87 (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

StanMan87 Did you bother to read WP:CRYSTAL. The word "will" as in "will continue to do so" relates to future tense. Do you claim a gift of prophesy or are you just soapboxing again on you opinion on an uncertain future. As far as I can tell 'SIL have recently expanded nothing other than an abhorrence for the extremist views and activities displayed. Members from within existing groups have pledged allegiance to al-Bagdadi but this constitutes movement and not growth. Governmental forces in Iraq are winning territorial gains. You abuse by making your unjustified "Pandora's box" type comments and you continue your scrying.

I agree with you in regard to mistakes in Iraq. Identity politics was already present in Iraq and coalition interventions enshrined this. If George Bush Jr's regime had any wits about it, it might have done something like dividing the country into Sunni and Shia areas and, hopefully, such a partition plan would have worked better than the one in Palestine, but this is personal opinion.

You are right when you say that different groups want different things. Welcome to the concept of groups. If you know anything about the European Union then you will know that places like the Middle East are not alone in being affected by this phenomena. However various of the groups concerned may well have one thing in common. Their members may not wish to be deprived of their liberties and potentially their lives through such sweeping actions that 'SIL have performed elsewhere.

Of course it is fine to call it the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". The United States of America still has that name even though it has many dependent territories added to which I am sure that you have also heard of Hawaii. This is about a quarter or the way around the world.

This is what I don't get about you and what you say. You say that you are not a Muslim and yet you push unqualified statements like "The IS wish to bring the law of God which is stated in the Qu'ran and is known as the Shari'a." In Wikipedia we do not even say the "prophet Mohamed" but rather refer to the "Islamic prophet Mohamed". It is not for us to declare anything in particular as being "of God" as this is taking sides and violates NPOV.

If, in response to the 7/7 bombing in London or to the German WWII blitz, the British government had responded by finding a Red Crescent volunteer or otherwise benevolently inclined German and then cut his/her head off then I would describe this as un-Buddhist, un-Christian, un-Islamic, un-anything you like.

When I do internet searches on terms like "Qu'ran" killing captive I typically find Islam themed sites saying why this is wrong. 'SIL acts as an aggressor against various towns and, when its male population surrenders, it kills very regularly kills them. I saw one 'SIL video in which captives had set up defences for an overrun town and the captive, talking while digging his own grave, was clearly ready to comply with anything that was set before him. However, Qu'ran based alternatives such as the cutting off of opposing hands and feet were not offered. Death was the single thing that is regularly prescribed.

Also, if you are not prepared to debate in a WP:CIVIL way and make unreferenced, unjustified claims isolating, "... parts worthwhile to respond to", then you have no business in engaging in dialogue in Wikipedia. As I have previously requested, "Either speak to editor's plainly or not at all." Don't disparage and insult. Despite the content of quotes in the article such as those from the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, who presumably knows his stuff, you seem to be pursuing this with a religious zeal. GregKaye 19:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I did not bother to read WP:CRYSTAL. I have told you I am nearly finished editing on this encyclopedia. I have no use to read it. You call there acts 'extreme', however what is considered 'extreme' today was once 'normal' some time ago, during the Biblical age, which these people (And not just IS, but also Taliban/AQ/Boko Haram/Caucasian Emirate etc.) get there inspiration from. And I do admit, (POV warning) I would l-o-v-e to see Shari'a be spread. Granted, it has certain flaws which could be improved (such as needing a certain number of eye-witnesses in certain cases and the status of women which needs to be fixed). But it is far better and more morally Just then the Western legal systems which are permeated with the ideas of 'liberalism' (The idea that you can do something as long as it doesn't harm other people, e.g drink alcohol, adultery, sell your body for money). A rapists gets how many years in prison where you live? A person who has committed an unjustified homicide? A person who beats you or steals from you? These people don't even get decapitated, let alone a ligament severed from their body in these countries. No finger or anything. Pff, if Shari'a has these punishments attached to laws, than I will gladly show any group espousing such beliefs the way to my Capital city. This isn't meant for a reference condoning the Islamic State. They do things which anger me. The rape of women primarily is what infuriates me about this group. The murder of the hostages, especially Kenji Goto who I had hoped would live also infuriates me. The other Japanese hostage I have little sympathy for. He traveled to Syria to make money off the suffering of people there by trying to start an arms-dealership 'business'. I am sure you are aware that twice al-Qaeda affiliated individuals have tried to save the lives of some of these hostages. Alan Henning was also defended by the al-Nusra Front [6]. Peter Kassig, who converted to Islam, was defended by a commander in the al-Nusra Front (Al-Qaeda in Syria) [7], [8]. There was also a bid to free him from two senior Salafi scholars Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi and Abu Qatada [9].The Islamic State killed him which is against the Qu'ran, to kill a fellow believer, and the IS men who knew about, ordered, and committed the act are going to have to justify that before God (If you believe in that). However, it is also against Islam to do many things, things which are committed everyday by those you see walking along the streets where you live who call themselves "Muslims". No, I am not a Muslim. I believe the universe was created through an event known as the Big-Bang. But I believe a superior entity made that event so. I do not believe in miracles or messiahs. But I believe in a supreme being, a God. I would love to belong to a faith. Whether it is Islam, Christianity or Judaism. However, I could not live an everyday life by following the Qu'ran, Torah or Gospel verbatim. I wouldn't be able to stone adulterers, behead murders and rapists. Cut the body parts off thieves. You may think this POV is somehow morally backward, and twisted. But I argue that anything less then death for those people is sick and twisted. I believe in harsh punishment. An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth. All of these are mentioned not only in the Qu'ran, but in the Torah and Gospel. I couldn't commit any of these acts of punishment where I live. So I'd be a hypocrite and wouldn't be following those rules and laws. You cited the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia. He has denounced the Islamic State. Yet his state has similar laws and punishments to those the Islamic State have enforced. The only reason I can see as to why he and other Saudi clerics have denounced the Islamic State is becuase had they not, they would be arrested by the House of al-Saud for fear of being collaborators. His position would be threatened. He and the other Wahhabi clerics need the royal Saudi family to maintain their privileged position in Saudi society. This is the same man who said that all churches should be destroyed in Saudi Arabia [10]. The same man who said that marrying a women below 15 is "permissible" [11]. I'll leave you again with something that happened in the past, 36 years ago. 1979, the Grand Mosque seizure in Mecca. Muslims who were considered 'radicals' seized the Grand Mosque in a bid to force the Saudi government to stop modernizing the nation and remove all western influence which had been embedded within the country since the end of WWII. They were known as the al-Ikhwan. The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia at the time, Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz taught and mentored many of the mutineers. He and the ruling Ulema (clerics) offered only very veiled criticism to the insurgents. They wouldn't denounce them as 'un-islamic' until the royal family pressed them for a fatwa to enter the mosque and remove them. Even then, the insurgents were only referred to as 'the armed group' rather than terrorists. So don't look to Saudi clerics for religious guidance in the matter on the Islamic State. Public criticism doesn't always mean private condemnation. (Digression) The original Ikhwan who were formed around 1913 a hundred years ago exactly from when the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham was formed in 2013 were very similar. They were known to cut the throats of people that they had defeated in battle and to massacre vast sums from towns and villages. History does repeat itself. StanMan87 (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

StanMan87. I was genuinely interested in your reply though you are right in recognising the POV issue. Countries like the US, at least in some of the States, have death penalties. In these days arguably on the basis that we live in a world with CCTV and the advancement in forensic evidence techniques we become better able to identify the guilty. The argument has always been that it is difficult to always be certain of guilt. In the UK I was on jury service in a murder case where there was a blurred cctv picture and an elderly female witness to a knifing who was, to some extent, discredited in the case. It was emotional for many and, at a later point of the case, the judge asked the foreperson of the jury whether the jury was likely to come to a decision and, without consultation with the rest of us, the guy said no. I am not sure myself of guilt in this case but a different jury may have said definitely yes or no.

Regarding a creation or generation of existence, I can quite happily consider that there may be an intelligence within existence that was, is and/or will be somehow involved as some kind of catalyst in regard to its initial creation/generation. The point here is that this "supreme being" / "supreme power" must, in some way, exist and this existence requires its own explanation. The condition of existence that we experience demonstrates evidence of an extraordinarily fortuitous balance in "natural law" and this is certainly fitting with the idea that an intelligence within existence may have been involved in orchestration of our natural setup. We are an intelligence within existence and, on condition that paradox may somehow be a possibility, I do not reject the view that we (or our future creations) may be involved in our own "genesis". However this is just one of the options that I see to provide possible explanations for the existence for our wonderful and beautiful universe.

I have mentioned that many Mohammedans consider that someone is a Muslim if they have said the shahadah but I acknowledge that various interpretations of the Qu'ran may indicate something different. Interpretations of text may also condemn the actions of the killing of the likes of the second Japanese 'SIL victim, the British aid worker or the great many others. Interpretations of sharia law may well be responsible for the massacre of groups such as the Yazidis. A great many lives of a people who may have variously seen wonder in the dancing of flame, have themselves been snuffed out. Again I ask "How do these actions have anything to do with a god with any kind of heart?" Supreme? How? To what ends? The interventionist god presented in the verses that you presented your verses from the Qu'ran could have worked in other ways. This is a God, if we are to believe in what we read in various religious texts, that can part seas and move mountains. Maybe the mountain that the yazidis fled too could have been moved. The truth is that the group kills a great many people, clerics included, without clear evidence, photographic, forensic or otherwise or, in the specific cases mentioned, any evidence at all. To many this is a perversion of faith. GregKaye 09:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. All someone has to do to become a Muslim is to say "There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God" with conviction and sincerity. Just saying it without meaning doesn't make it so. However, you are mistaken if you think this is all you have to do to 'remain' a Muslim. It's not that easy.

Islam is a religion which at times can be contradictory, just as Christianity and Judaism. Let me cite you an excerpt from Caliph Ali, son-in-law to the Prophet Muhammad, the 4th Caliph according to Sunnis and the 1st according to Shi'ites:""Let the dearest of your treasuries be the treasury of righteous action. Infuse your heart with mercy, love and kindness for your subjects. Be not in the face of them a voracious animal, counting them as easy prey, for they are of two kinds: either they are your brothers in religion or your equals in creation." [12]This is what he wrote to a governor in a province of his Caliphate, and how he should rule. In the history of Islam, there have been righteous men with good deeds to their names. I consider Imam Ali, and Imam Hussein (The one beheaded by Yazid I) to be benevolent figures. Hussein tried to fight against tyranny and injustice but got himself killed at the Battle of Karbala. Islam has many good men in its history. It also has had men who have been prone to violence, such as Caliph Yazid I and others. Same with Christianity and Judaism.

Who ever said God has a heart? The Qu'ran states that God is like no other of his creations 122:4,42:11. God is God. We cannot fathom what he is. The Gospel or Torah say that we are created out of his image, so that's why in Christianity, God is sometimes shown to resemble a human with a great beard. If God is like none of his creations (both on this world and others) how do you know if he feels empathy? Or anger? He has destroyed people according to the Bible, Torah and Qu'ran so he clearly feels antagonized by the actions of humans.

I feel this dialogue is coming to an end. If you wish to respond to this, I will read it. StanMan87 (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

StanMan87 I did not ask for this dialogue to start. I posted on your page regarding your flagrant misrepresentation: "It is rather clear cut which option is being supported" when nothing could have been further from the truth, your repetitious reassertions of points even in threads where they had no direct relevance and what I consider to be your pushing of forms of WP:CRYSTAL which is a guideline that you have said above that you "did not bother to read". I honestly do not think that you are interested in dialogue within Wikipedia beyond your preference to hammer home what I consider to be your POV views.

If you consider there to be a god who is creator of the Universe then of course it is possible to fathom what s/he-it is. The natural world has great order and the portion of existence that we witness is of great majesty. If this demonstrates the extent of god's power then we can wonder about the extent that this god places any effort or attention in regard to mankind. There are plenty of clues here for our consideration. The Earth is not the centre of the solar system, the solar system is not the centre of our galaxy, there is nothing to indicate our galaxy to necessarily be the centre of our Universe and there is also nothing to indicate that our Universe isn't one of many. However, what we do have is a natural order that is stunningly wonderful and, by whatever interpretation that we take, it is a bountiful gift. How is it possible in religion, to receive such a gift and still be an utter shit to others? How can you respond to benevolence with atrocity? It beggars belief.

In my contents on your talk page with discussion transferred to here, I have asked you to give heed to aspects of Wikipedia guidelines in regard to honest, representative and civil editing and even when content has been presented to you, you have had, IMO, the contempt for it not to even be bothered to read it. In this context I have not seen great point in this dialogue for quite some time. Communication is meant to be a two way process yet it seems to me that all you want to do is preach. GregKaye 19:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

StanMan87 Its a while since we have spoken and I hope you are well. I'm just wanted to ask if you thought that there was any genuinely Islamic justification for the killing or the Coptic Christians. Your thoughts regarding this treatment of people of the book would be appreciated. GregKaye 19:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Ping?[edit]

Hello Gregkaye, would you be able to tell me if it is standard practice to ping editors when you reply to them. Most of the time I do, do it but I have seen a few instances where I have not done so as I am sure you are aware. On a side note thank you for your recent response on the unrecognized states article. The ISIL topic is very interesting and I can see how one could spend all their time here just on that. If myself or any other editors errs by misapplying policy in a non-neutral way then I am hoping my more senior colleagues such as yourself will provide assistance in understanding such issues more clearly. Regards

Note added later; if you would permit me to ask one more question, can youtube be used as a source when writing articles? I am sure that is not allowed but would just like some clarification. Mbcap (talk) 09:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap I think that my assertive presentation of a recent ping comment went to far and I appreciate your patience with that. As mentioned I think, if anything, replies that are not placed at the end of threads might more clearly warrant pings as a matter of courtesy. What I have noticed is that many editors will typically ping other editors if they want support from someone that agrees with them or they think they have got another editor on the ropes and, to some extent, within this culture I am sure I have done this myself. I have noticed the "single purpose account" argument used many times and, strangely enough, I think that it is "restrictive" in its implied demand for breadth. I am often reassured by the breadth of an editor's interests but think that close inspection can be needed to discern (a negative form of) "single purpose" form a more benign "single interest". I was grateful to you for your invitation for comment on talk pages related to Israel which has reopened that area of interest in a subject where I feel further work will need to be done.

As far as "senior colleagues" I am clearly not one of them and, if anything, my black marks on my block record set me down some pegs. I still contest that the edits that got me there were done in the best of faith - but what to do? :) I could be wrong but I think that any informative encyclopaedic content can be added to the encyclopaedia from any source if it checks out. Some of the most officious of organisations have youtube channels as do some national governments as well as many of what Wikipedia calls reliable sources. I'd suggest that each source and content might need to be considered on its own merit an perhaps this response is of little clear help. GregKaye 14:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gregkaye, this is completley unrelated to the above posts. Just wanted to say that you have a great sense of humour. lets just leave it at that. Mbcap (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Tel Aviv demonyms[edit]

Heya, I see you put Tel Avivi and Tel Aviveet as the transliterations for תל אביבי and תל אביבית, respectively. I've no problem with the male form, but the female form used implies a longer i-sound (like Arabic ي) than is really there. Tel Avivit would be pronounced with the same sound as Tel Avivi, but with a -t at the end of course (unless you're dealing with Yiddish speakers who'd give a weird -s sound, but no one cares what they think) and would sound exactly like if you were to put the English word 'it' at the end of Tel Aviv and run the two together. That's also the common transliteration for ית-. Just my thoughts on the matter. :) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 19 Shevat 5775 18:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie my only thought here was to prevent the ending being the ending of the word being pronounced in a similar way as words like exit, pit and shit... :) but have made the change which was a good suggestion. I hadn't noticed/taken on board that the plural was presented as "Tel Avivim". I have started a related thread Talk:Modern Hebrew grammar#Suggest section: Gender and number in Hebrew nouns and adjectives in response to thoughts that you inspired here and would be interested if you have comment. Thanks. GregKaye 09:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I've changed my name[edit]

Just to let you know, I've changed my name from John Smith the Gamer to Banak Banak (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Banak, I don't know if it would be of any interest to you but there are currently 12 "John Smith"s currently in discussion for (relatively subtle changes of name) at WP:RM, 13 if you count "The Doctor" who used "John Smith" as an alternate name/alias. GregKaye 08:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Some help on Discrimination series[edit]

Hi, I am wondering how to add an article to the Discrimination series. I saw that you have made edits there before and I thought you may be able to help. I have recently improved the Anti-kurdism page and wish to add it to the discrimination series. Is there anywhere you can point me to that explains this? Thanks.

Hi Sharisna, Write the name of the article that you want to write in the search box towards the top right of the screen. If the name is not already used for an article or a redirect then there will be a clickable option to start that article. There's a lot of good information at Wikipedia:Your first article. Enjoy. GregKaye 07:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi GregKaye Thanks for the information but I think you may have misunderstood. The article for Anti-kurdism has already been created. I simply wanted to add it to the Discrimination series category. Do you know how to do that?

Sharisna, It looks to me like it's already in Category:Discrimination. One thing I did was to changed the article from Category:Kurds to Category:Kurdish people. Is this the series you mean. Do you want to have the category moved to Category:Kurds? There are instructions for moving categories at WP:RM GregKaye 05:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye Thank you. Category:Kurdish people looks correct. Sharisna (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at my new proposal at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant[edit]

The page should be moved to ISIS. There is strong support for a move to ISIS. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is wrong, but even I support a move to ISIS. I've made a proposal as such. Please comment. RGloucester — ☎ 06:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Jihadi John[edit]

Re your edit here - I thought we were having an RfC to decide this? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Martinevans123, appreciated. At present the RfC is predominantly in favour of the change. I will note changes on the talk page and will happily revert if necessary. GregKaye 16:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Judging from the last two RfC responses, I'm not sure why we bothered. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Martinevans123, For me the whole concept of Jihadi John, given the cultural references and the actions involved, seems to be an outrageous oxymoron. It is presented by the same media that pursued Diana, "princess of Wales" and partner to their deaths and are now happy to trounce on another icon's memory for the sake of a spin in their headline presentations. I find it galling that the media can't be "reliable" in a wider range of ways. GregKaye 16:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully we'll be able to dodge "Mujahdeen Ringo". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:2 May 2014 Odessa clashes#Requested move 3 March 2015[edit]

I created and am inviting you to another move discussion; join in. --George Ho (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Accidentally hid your comment....[edit]

Sorry, but in my hatting here, the hat gobbled up your comment which is still relevant to the topic. I don't want to be so presumptious as to move (and thus accidentally misrepresent) your comment, and so I'm letting you know so you can move it somewhere you think it fits best. Cheers! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Adar 5775 02:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Sir William Thank you and np. Other arguments have been repetitively made and my arguments have also been repetitively made. I heard you say something along the line that you don't particularly like working on the Israel talk page because of pushiness of editors and I appreciate you sticking with it. GregKaye 07:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

That's why I try to avoid getting into those long indented convo segments that would span several printed pages. They usually repeat the same stuff over and over and get unnecessarily nasty. I try not to push back on pushy behaviour from other editors because if you respond civilly to them you kind of go past them and come out the winner rather than winding up in a time-consuming and pointless wrestling match where both editors come out looking silly. That and I only like to be pushy in real-life situations where not being firm with someone would result in severe or even fatal injuries (such as people pickaxing back to back). It's probably also helpful that I often edit Wikipedia at night whilst toasted and I'm a rather jovial drunk, haha.

Plus, I love Israel and Palestine and so I just try to make sure the info on Wikipedia sticks to policy as much as possible—even if I don't like it—so that there's fewer things to argue over as it makes them look bad (I especially hate this idea of Jews vs. Arabs or Muslims). The actual countries both have a certain simplicity and glorious chaos that gets lost in all the political rhetoric and vitriol that's encouraged by the various governments, media, special interest groups, etc. So I hate seeing the same, often dehumanising and demonising, arguments over people that would prefer to just get on with their lives without being anyone's cause or enemy. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Adar 5775 16:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie The say LeChayim and fight to the death. I guess that on the drinking front you can relate to the Jews more. I remember that the Muslim shops in East Jerusalem were often well stocked with alcohol. Its a wonder.

Are you familiar with Mosh Ben Ari, Salaam? Its a bit retro but still one of my favourite tracks of his. GregKaye 17:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking more that both sides (as in their politicians) are equally culpable. Haha, well I am a Jew so I daresay I am related to them. They were well-stocked but expensive. Thank God for Taybeh though (which is a misnomer as it's not good beer, it's great beer, even better than Goldstar Unfiltered).

Ah, I never heard him before, but it's a beautiful song and the dude has sweet dreads. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16 Adar 5775 20:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie I'd like to see the (hold on .... good, I've got a drink) Barnstar for contributing on Israeli issues renamed as the "Goldstar". Your comment put me a bit in a mood for larger but my first sip of Murphys cured that. I'm typically happy to have what I've got. GregKaye 21:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hahaha, oh that's brilliant! Is there any way way to actually implement this? It'd be a welcome departure from the usual drama. And lagers for the win. Especially anything with cinnamon from Harpoon. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 18 Adar 5775 00:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you suggest a book?[edit]

Hello Gregkaye, would you be kind enough to suggest a source, possibly a book about the history of Israel and Palestine. And secondly what is the difference between the SoP and the Palestinian territories? Is this question relevant to the RM being discussed on the SoP page? Regards Mbcap (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mbcap, I'm afraid that my knowledge of Israel has mainly been gained by living in territories accessed through the repetitive acquisition of three month Israeli visas. In the end it became clear, in one of my three hour to get through (its not unusual) airport processings, that I would be unlikely to be readmitted. People don't normally go to a country the size of Wales as a tourist for 5 years. My experience was gained from experiences from going though check points into and in across the wall palestine, doing Israeli folk dancing and meeting some amazing peace loving (and other) people on both sides. I am new in my understandings of the SoP (my shortcut) so don't trust this too much. Palestinian territories is just an adjective before a noun but the phrase has been used to describe the specific territory of the West Bank and Gaza strip. The US has traditionally sided with Israeli governments in many instances and they have been chief amongst those that apply the proscriptive definition. (I personally have no fixed opinion on the extent to which territories should be eventually be allotted to the SoP. I am just dubious in regard to the pushing of conclusions by the US and others before agreement has been achieved). The SoP is in effect an administration without ultimate territorial control. It has governance (I'm not sure to what extent) as per List of cities administered by the Palestinian National Authority. That's as much as I think I know GregKaye 18:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Your thoughts are interesting and you must have had an amazing experience. Thank you for sharing it. It is surprising how much you know then if this has been your only port of call to derive information from. Anyway, if you come across a neutral account (or something that comes close) of the history of Israel and Palestine, please do let me know. It is frustrating trying to edit on an area where my ignorance impede's how much work I can put in. The Israeli/Palestinian issue seems, to me at least, to be very confusing. Mbcap (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap IMO your lack of background baggage, should this apply, may actually be an asset in editing here and the fact you find it confusing may actually show a level of understanding. On its own I think that it is an interesting topic but am curious re how your interest developed. GregKaye 08:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I was sort of compelled into developing an interest in the Israel/Palestine issue and it is a long story which I am sure is not that interesting. Too often on the University campus you would meet members of the Palestinian society and the Jewish Society, handing out leaflets and criticising each other. I know that Israel and Jewish are similar but different identities. It just happens that at the University I attend, the Jewish Society is Pro-Israel. All this while their stalls are next to each other. I would go to the Palestinian stall and hear them speak against the Israeli's and then I would go the Jewish society stall and hear them criticise the Palestinian's. Have you ever been in the middle of an argument between two of your friends, and not known what to do or who to side with or not? That is what it was like. Add to this, the incident where the administrative building including the Chancellor's office became the scene of a sit in against the University's selling of Israeli products. Furthermore, there is the sheer inescapable coverage of the conflict on the news. I guess what I am trying to say is that I was simply unable to escape the issue. When I attempted to research the area, I found that on the issue is covered in such a way as to suggest an inherent existence of a dichotomy between two people. This is where I have been stuck as I do not know what to read to gain a greater understanding of the issue. On a professional level, I have an interest in Medicine and Israel is a physicians dream destination to learn new techniques in the field and to also learn how to push new frontiers in medical research, something which Israel is proficient at. My professional interests also extend towards the neurocognitive basis of expertise. Israel is home to greatest number of patents registered per capita and the country is a sight to behold as it is literally flooded with experts in a wide variety of fields. As to Palestine, I have many colleagues who travel there to provide medical aid and their verbal accounts are quite sad to hear which by the include stories of checkpoints and processing at the Airport, just like you have previously mentioned. These are some of the things that have drawn me to area but it is all too confusing. I refuse to believe that one side is solely responsible for all of this, there is probably enough blame to go around to everyone and then some. Please do take a lot of the opinions in this post with a pinch of salt because it is the opinion of someone ignorant of the background information. Mbcap (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap That was honestly beautiful. Informed or at least open ignorance I think is the best position. This is partly why I am against stating that Jerusalem is "of"/ now "in" Israel until this has been agreed between all the relevant international parties concerned. The standing between the tables with what sounds like negative campaigning sounds aweful. The other side of this relates to what each side says they are entitled to and on both sides this can be questioned. Both sides claim Jerusalem but, at least according to the partition plan, neither has the right.

I googled jewish society and got a lot of results. Where was this/are you? GregKaye 21:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well as they say in the vernacular; it is what it is. I have emailed you the names of the societies concerned. In the mean time, I hope you carry on your work on improving the pages related to this topic and maybe once I have spent a few hundred hours in the library researching this, I will join you as well on a more active basis. Mbcap (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

RM at Sa'ada and Murabtin[edit]

Greg

this edit made a mess of the formatting of the section, it should have gone in the survey subsection (although it also contains some discussion).

Would you like to fix it? Alternatively I can, either by moving your support to the relevant subsection or by just removing the now inappropriate subsection headings completely. Andrewa (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Andrewa ty for following this up. I have made the move. GregKaye 08:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hel (being)[edit]

Hello. Please revert Hel (deity) back to Hel (being). There is a long series of talk page discussions about this on the talk page. Most importantly, nowhere is Hel listed as a deity. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

:bloodofox: Done and sorry for the confusion. BTW gr8 name . GregKaye 16:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and thanks! :bloodofox: (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, under Talk:Hel (being) where you wanted to continue the rename discussion, your Talk:Hel (being)#The unbearable lightness of (being) thread grew a bit unwieldy in size for me, so I'm going to split off the portion where you are advocating "goddess" as a separate section heading, so I can rebut this, and make the thread more legible. I'm just going to choose a section name off the top of my head, but if you dislike it, please rename it something else. Thanks. --Kiyoweap (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Greek mythology vs. Greek religion[edit]

Greek mythology and Ancient Greek religion are not the same thing. Please stop changing one to the other. Paul August ☎ 16:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Paul August I can see how there can be a difference but differentiation can be difficult when the topics relate to deities all of which I understand were worshipped or otherwise venerated in one form or another. I will take further care in future but I think that there is a strong POV when we label ancient beliefs as myths. Its funny I was just at your talk page intending to check in with you when you wrote. GregKaye 16:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Though there is considerable overlap between ancient Greek religion and Greek mythology, not all Greek mythological figures were dieties, or even religious. I think you muisunderstand mythological to mean untrue, which it doesn't. You should read up on the subject. Paul August ☎ 16:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Paul August I agree that there are two/multiple meanings of myth but it is indisputable that the primary meaning is always going to be coloured by the secondary meaning. All of the articles that I edited were categorised as gods/goddesses and even then I made checks on content. GregKaye 16:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately you can't always go by the categarization, for example none of the figures mentioned at Menoetius (Greek mythology) are properly gods. Paul August ☎ 16:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Paul August understood but I still think that questions can be asked regarding a fitting into religion and on this I am not sure of the right approach. Take a look at Template:Ancient Greek religion. Here Greek mythology is presented as a feature of "Ancient Greek religion and Modern Hellenism". Perhaps "features" should be presented as "related topics" or something. None the less I think that the religion was quite encompassing. GregKaye 17:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Paul August I raised the issue to you here with "an illustration of the extent that the interpretation as mythology is being pushed". I would appreciate any views on this and of any ideas for potential changes.

I also appreciate your mention above of Menoetius (Greek mythology) and I notice that this content is not placed within Category:Greek gods. Can I get you opinion on the specific contents of this category and that of Category:Greek goddesses - are there any characters in these categories who's titles contain parenthesis but which you would not classify as deities and fitting the description god or goddess? Thanks. GregKaye 18:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Greg, I've looked at the lists you mention here, and I agree that the term "mythology" is being used problematically in these lists. See for example the changes I've made here. As for the categories you mention, populating them appropriately is, unfortunately, a can of worms. Paul August ☎ 11:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

ty Paul August. I really appreciate that. There is a lot of similar content. Some of the articles that I was looking In regard to contain heading texts such as ==[[Aztec mythology]]==. In this type of case I was thinking of changing to something like ==Aztec pantheon== followed by {{See also|Aztec mythology}} or in other cases hopefully something like {{See also|Foo religion|Foo mythology}}. in line with the article Religion and mythology I am also looking to develop a category structure on the lines of Category:Religion and mythology. I'm hoping that this kind of thing might help bridge what I see as a gap between the two sets of presentation. I am not sure if there will be difficulties in incorporating pan, mon and other theisms. </nowiki> That's basically as far as I have got and am wondering how many worm cans I will find. GregKaye 13:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I would sugggest changing, for example, "==[[Aztec mythology]]==" to simply "==Aztec ==" followed by "{{See also|Aztec religion|Aztec mythology}}". 15:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Hold Back the River (song)[edit]

I've asked the editor why but seems to have been an undiscussed article blanking involved. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

In ictu oculi I just checked and Hold Back the River (James Bay song) acts as a redirect for Hold Back the River (song). GregKaye 17:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

But Hold Back the River (Wet Wet Wet song) is also an article. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

In ictu oculi I'm still not familiar with this guideline but appreciate the case that you have made. A reference to the "dab page should have three items so can't be deleted" reference would help me personally if it is possible to dig out. GregKaye 18:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism[edit]

Yay, another move request! Okay, so obviously I'm sitting this one out, but I really, really think that the two moves should've been done as a single multi-move. (I'm concerned about half the editors on one RM missing the discussion on another, and leading to two inconsistent titles, among other problems.) Do you agree? If so, would you mind please closing one of the two moves and making the other one a multi-move? I would have done it myself, but, lol, obviously I would not put myself in that situation again! Red Slash 21:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Red Slash Similar pov problems with articles like Christian terrorism etc. may be more challenging to tackle but may be worth some thought. I've also raised a similar issue at a Talk:British fascism but am unsure if there is an actual variation in an ideology in operation here. GregKaye 00:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

About Greg.[edit]

Hello Gregkaye, just to let you know, whenever I address you via ping form, the name comes out as Greg when I press save edit. My apologies if you prefer being addressed with your full name. I just have no clue how to get the full username in. Mbcap (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap That's hilarious (to me right now) and extremely welcome. As you have seen I have recently been called "the person" and "Kaye". Your good natured edits, despite occasional disagreement on topic, are consistently agreeable in nature. My friends call me Greg and I'm more than fine with that. GregKaye 16:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Haha, I am pleased that you are amused and thank you for your remarks. I have no idea why you were met with such references but at least now it seems the discussion has been refocused. Mbcap (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap The Kaye may have been an oversight. Who knows? I think that the person concerned (and, lol, I'm legitimately using the term as I have forgotten the name) just thought that people were attacking and trying to disband the topic. RG mentioned American exceptionalism and I thought of Green Day. Personally i hope it was just a case of getting the wrong end of the stick and I hope that my presentation of the content at British people helped.

Different life experiences of mine can leave me some times with a tendency to fight back in some scenarios which always isn't good. There is some learning to do. GregKaye 17:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

There is much learning to do, I agree. The recent discussions have been a good educational tool as it has too, made me reflect on some of my past conduct. There is always an amicable way to disagree. Personally I am going to disengage from the RM because the raised policy based points are not being discussed in my opinion. I hope you continue the work on the ethnicity based titles which seems to be an area you are familiar with. Mbcap (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

TY Mbcap. As you know namings, especially in regard to ethnic and religious topics, is quite important to me and WP:RM has typically been my most regular haunt for most of my time on Wiki. For you which policy based points are not being discussed? For me I think that there is an over emphasis on disambiguation over explanation but that is just one issue. GregKaye 15:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Telegraphic style[edit]

I find the telegraphic style that you have used at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation very hard to interpret. It would help me, and doubtless DexDor, if you could provide a little more detail and background regarding your thoughts. Also, apparently you put some store by root word analysis of text. Could you recommend an informatics article on the technique and its value? --Bejnar (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Bejnar Thank you for your kind comments. Perhaps there is an irony in that I am encouraging the provision of more information when I was giving less. All I was doing was searching in the first part of various words that, in different derivations. Another irony is that, at the moment I am working on shortening ethnicity related titles: "Filipino people" to "Filipinos" and moves like that.

I find it frustrating in discussion, where I feel that I am trying to make positive suggestions, other editors are responding (in bizarre and inflated examples) with scaremongering and ridicule. GregKaye 22:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Korean American disparaging comment[edit]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

That was insulting.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast I was recently thinking about the use of trout and its comparison to normal conversation. Comments are made within text while trout makes a drama. The fact is that "Korean American" is not a sensible title. RGloucester was, I think right, to comment at one of his related posts that, "This whole discussion is an absurdity". A large content of issues have been presented on this but otherwise it seems a more basic issue of WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT is in play. In the "discussion" I have been impersonally described as the person and there has been no shortage of undercutting reference to which, Mbcap felt the need to comment "Can we please argue the points and not editors." Perhaps this is something that I should also have taken on board but, as far as I can see, the conversation is getting silly.

In the past editors have asked me whether English was my first language but admittedly this has been in the context of me writing about foreign language subjects. The whole discussion is absurd and contrary to the common use of the English language. My first comment was directed to you in the context I simply couldn't understand the justification of your argument which had been well refuted in the text. The rest was general comment. GregKaye 07:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Grave mistake[edit]

You lack tact. You've made a grave error in attempting mass RMs. Moves should be done on a case by case basis. You've completely destroyed any chance for any of these articles to be moved. RGloucester — ☎ 23:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester I think it may be fair to say we have both lacked a bit of tact recently. Even so, I personally am as surprised as you are at the responses of a couple of editors at the Belizean people discussion. I really should have presented more statistical information from the beginning and maybe that would have better worked things through. Some of the issues raised have been interesting and I will be interested to see how they may relate to the various articles. As far as I am now concerned there may not be a right answer in all cases. GregKaye 15:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It is always best to deal with things on a case-by-case basis, to ensure that the proper evidence is provided and is clear. Mass changes just don't do justice to the individual topics. RGloucester — ☎ 16:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester the Saudi issue certainly indicates that you have an argument here. Thanks for picking that up. GregKaye 17:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Are you sure you are not an idiot? Do you learn from your mistakes? Why the heck did you open a new mass move request for the Canadian ethnicities? What idiocy. Please stop making messes across the encyclopaedia, and gain some tact. RGloucester — ☎ 00:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester are you sure that you are not a manipulative gaming editor. In comments at the Korean American's discussion it was said that perhaps there was a misunderstanding regarding consideration of of the way that american ethnicities were considered. This will help decide whether this is true or not. Its not about getting a move that a particular editor wants but the move that is right for Wikipedia. Please refrain from your uncivil contacts. In content such as Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Propose presenting content before style in WP:CRITERIA you have failed to answer questions, you have insinuated my lack of understanding and you have failed to reply to the most recent post. I would advise you to seriously consider issues around WP:tendentious editing. We are here to edit so as to achieve the best option for Wikipedia. If you have thoughts on ethnicities you can also add comment at WT:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes). GregKaye 03:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no thoughts. The only tendentious editor is you. Making mass move requests that are bound to fail, before the Korean American matter is even settled, is a recipe for disaster. You make messes all over the place, interpreting policies in weird ways, starting disruptive move proposals, requesting ten thousand changes to policies without attaining the proper consensus. Please stop. Your editing style is not productive, and it is confusing. If there are legitimate reasons for moving those articles, and I think there are, they cannot be addressed in a mass move request. RGloucester — ☎ 03:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Matters must be addressed on a case-by-case basis...as I said above. And, most of all, conservatism is best. That is to say, I think that one must value stability, as WP:TITLECHANGES tells us to. Keep this guidance in mind. RGloucester — ☎ 04:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester While I have heard what you have said WP:TITLECHANGES says nothing about multiple moves. GregKaye 05:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Not specifically, no, but it makes clear that stability is valuable. RGloucester — ☎ 13:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• RGloucester In the content of WT:AT please consider responding to the three times presented request, "Please explain what value you see in the content with the questionable title "Naturalness"". Please also respond to comment at: Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Propose presenting content before style in WP:CRITERIA. Read it through. Policies presently present a variety of inconsistencies and absurdities or weirdness as you might interpret it. GregKaye 05:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't need to respond. It is a waste of time, which is why no one else is responding either. RGloucester — ☎ 13:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Hello, Greg! Good to see you so active in ISIS still. Haven't been editing in Wikipedia so much lately and will most likely not return to the fray in ISIS. Fond memories of our early collaboration remain and here's hoping we can put our differences behind us. ~ P-123 (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

P-123 I really appreciate that. I hope that, in some ways, you consider me a supporter. Even after the AN/I, I believe that I was the only editor to intervene on your behalf on my page and yours. One of my main thoughts in the run up to Christmas was the impracticalities of being in an Iban situation while we both worked on the same topics. I know that I can have sharp edges and present no justification. There was a lot going on all round at the time. One thing that I would appreciate would be if you could remove the walkaway reference from your user page. I really don't think that the content represents how things happened. Its good to see you back and have often wondered/ checked in to see how you were getting on. GregKaye 21:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

There were other reasons why I stopped editing, mainly because I was hounded by an unpleasant troll IP/IPs for many weeks after the TBAN/IBAN. An SPI and endless discussion with admins over the problem did not resolve the matter. I have no idea who the IP was. It has put me off WP perhaps for good, I'm afraid. They seemed determined to drive me away from WP editing and they have succeeded. I wanted to "thank" you yesterday for your support post AN/I over the stupid mistake I made, but could not find where you did this. Thanks for your support at a difficult time and best wishes for future WP editing, Greg. ~ 86.159.47.78 (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

P-123 People cannot add comments to newspaper blogs without logging in and even then their comments are often vetted. I did a revamp on Secret identity here but I don't think desire for editors to be able to comment without fear of backlash is a valid excuse for permitting the abusive use of IP addresses that you experienced.

Don't get me wrong, I am still "wary", would fully understand if you feel similarly but don't let this interfere with fond memories I also share. For my part I have still found it difficult to reign back on sharp comments, phrasing or contents in some cases. I have always had high regard for many of your editing skills and also wish you the best in your future ventures in Wikipedia or elsewhere. GregKaye 10:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

TY, Greg. Just noticed I forgot to log in when posting my last message! I share the characteristic you describe but bear no grudges over our past disagreements! ~ P-123 (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Thanks for your response to my apology on the ANI page.

Since posting that response, I decided to begin working on minor copyedits on articles I'm interested in reading. However, a couple of other users are watching me and won't seem to accept any change I make. In particular I made a very minor, trivial edit to Iraq, promoting another user to post repeated 'warnings' that I'll be blocked without warning for posting 'unverifiable' content. (The edit added an undisputed fact.) I removed those 'warnings' from my talk page, as I found them quite frustrating.

Since you seem to be open to giving people the chance to learn how to navigate the site, I'd greatly appreciate your input if you could spare the time to look into the issue. ... Thanks in advance for your consideration. JoeM (talk) 06:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

JoeM My comments, in all their aspects, at AN/I were very heartfelt and I feel strongly in regard to fair representation.

On a more fundamental level I think that the current AN/I issue needs to be handled as, I think rightly, editors responses to your actual edits is leading to a decision for you to be blocked and I am pretty sure that this will be the outcome of the AN/I. Like I have said I think that there is reason to assume good faith on your part.

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Appealing a block because I think that the same principles involved in an appeal can be used by you now in response to the AN/I. See particularly: Wikipedia:Appealing a block#Types of appeal:

1. Requests for unblock in the event of a case of mistaken identity, misunderstanding, or other irregularity;
2. Appeals for clemency, in which the appellant acknowledges the conduct that led to their block and requests a second chance.

In your situation editors have unanimously found/interpreted fault with your past edits so I would be careful in regard to your handling of the first option. However requests for any clarification on your part, and acknowledgements of conduct along with reassurances of cooperative and consensus based conduct can only go down well. I am thinking of the top of my head here, ah yes, I have found a relevant guideline. You could even request a WP:MENTOR.

For me I will, as I have time, follow your edits and act as a WP:Talk page stalker but think there may be a limit to what I can do. As you will see from Talk:ISIL I am very involved in this subject. However, due to the view that, on the basis of the first edit mentioned in your AN/I case, we may have edited from different positions, my inputs may be acceptable.

gl, and let me know your thoughts as you want. GregKaye 07:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations![edit]

List of Islamist terrorist attacks is now a thing, and Islamist terrorism may soon follow. I know that this is a very big deal to you; congratulations. I felt the same when Kosovo finally became an article about the country; it is awesome to feel that your efforts have made a difference in shaping how people worldwide view the world. I wish you the very best in your continued efforts here on Wikipedia. (See, I told you I was never against your move.) Red Slash 19:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

that's appreciated my friend. The encouraging thing is that it will also open up a route for making the knock on change in categories. I am still unsure as to how far actual Islam extends into Islamism but clearly the terrorist incidents are extreme by the majority of reckonings. Beyond a general state of agnosticism I find it neh impossible to believe that there could be a God character could be involved in that religion. GregKaye 20:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton move rationale[edit]

Before launching a move request on this subject, I would suggest that you have a look at the previous requests to see where they fell short, and to the extensive study of the topic that I put together last year at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/Move rationale. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• BD2412, Why are you talking with me? Please just go and blow someone else ludicrously out of proportion as you have been inclined to do. No, please be straight forward. Please don't collude. GregKaye 13:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • There are many things that we disagree about, but this is not one of them. I have supported moving "Hillary Rodham Clinton" to "Hillary Clinton" in the past several discussions on the topic, and I have written an extensive analysis in support of the move. Our differences on other issues should not prevent us from working together when we are on the same side of an issue. bd2412 T 13:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

BD2412 I have no wish to work with someone who exploits the kind of manipulative demeaning tactics that you use. GregKaye 13:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I do sincerely regret if you have felt that my examples were demeaning. My sole intent was to point out the potential extremes to which titles could be expanded under loose rules. I have no malice towards you. bd2412 T 19:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

BD2412 What is it about the, as I see it, Wikipedia dogma of WP:CONCISE that causes editors to present ludicrous and grossly exaggerated examples in its protection? First it was notably you at WT:Disambiguation and now, to some extent, QuartierLatin1968 in relation to an article title at Talk:Crow (Australian Aboriginal mythology). There could be possibilities for guidelines to present a preference for titles to be of optimal length so as to best meet other guideline preferences.

You have the right to choose your tactics in the presentation of any argument that you wish to make. Other editors have the right to form their own opinions in regard to what they see of the tactics used. GregKaye 08:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

That is true. My offer to help draft a move proposal for Hillary Rodham Clinton remains open, however. Also, I wouldn't be discouraged by the response on that talk page, editors calling it "d.o.a" and a "waste of time" and the like. If you look at the previous discussions, there is a set group of editors who adamantly oppose the proposal every time it comes up, no matter what rationale is presented. Their numbers remain about the same, while support for the move increases substantially every time it is proposed. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

BD2412 It astounds me that the same people talk about gaming. My advise, should you want to take it or not, is, if people exhibit extreme tactics in argument, respond to suit and, if editors exhibit more moderate tactics in debate, respond to suit. Please absorb Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning. Even if you can say on a topic " I am pretty clearly a fanatic", there is no excuse. I have opened things up for text development on the Clinton page but I do not want to work with you. GregKaye 13:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

HRC RM[edit]

Hey Greg,

Good work with the HRC RM proposal. Not sure how familiar you are with the last discussion on this topic. You may want to glance at it. This is definitely one of the more controversial topics I've come across on WP. You/we may want to step into another another RM with our eyes open.

Expect resistance. NickCT (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@BD2412 and GregKaye:

After reading the section above; not sure what the beef is from your previous debates, but I'd strongly, strongly urge User:GregKaye to bury the hatchet (not in the back of BD's skull). The HRC RM will be more successful if we work together.

Having conversed with BD in the last HRC debate, I can vouch that when he says "Our differences on other issues should not prevent us from working together when we are on the same side of an issue." he's being sincere. Greg, if you're really interested in making this RM work, I'd really suggest you look for willing collaborators (e.g. myself and BD).

Why can't we be friends? NickCT (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Why indeed. GregKaye 15:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

NickCT Can you help me, what is the motivation for favouring the Rodham name? GregKaye 15:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

re "what is the motivation for favouring the Rodham name?" - Again, I'd strongly encourage you to take 10 minutes to read over the last discussion on this topic. All the motivations are pretty well outlined there.

My interpretation of the debate (and you may disagree with me after reading it), is that a lot of people felt that stripping HRC of her maiden middle name, when she herself liked it, was somehow sexist, and somehow a violation of BLP.

There primary arguments seemed to be WP:COMMONNAME against WP:BLP. NickCT (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

NickCT that's (unintentional choice of word) hilarious GregKaye 16:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: - And FYI - You're unlikely to get anywhere with Tarc. Debating with him is like wrestling a pig. Regardless of how strong your position is you're not going achieve much, and you're probably going to end up getting dirty. NickCT (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

HRodManC motivation[edit]

BD2412, Calidum and NickCT the three of you have been "credited" in DD2K's 17:35, 26 April 2015 post as being the main editors from the last move request. Obviously you have no obligation to comment but I'm curious about motivation. For me, sure, I want the project to have common names represented and for Wikipedia not to have favourites but, to be honest, a lot of my contribution has been down to people aggressively, IMO, talking about wasting time or whatever and me thinking that I felt it fair to prove that we weren't wasting their time and a lot of it was a response to a variety of forms of flaming. Wikipedia can be an odd place sometimes. GregKaye 17:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, the thing is (from my perspective), there was a move request made two years ago that was properly closed in favor of moving, and then reversed on a technicality. This inspired me to thoroughly research the subject, resulting in my drafting of Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/Move rationale. You can see that I covered every point in depth there, and everything I found confirmed that the page should have been moved in the first place. Before I got around to finishing it, another editor made a somewhat more detailed move request last year which got 70% support and should have resulted in a move, but the closing admins were, quite frankly, mislead to believe that there was some policy preferring biographies over other sources (we've never applied such a standard for any other person), and treating books that use "Rodham" once and "Hillary Clinton" dozens of times as favoring "Rodham". What I find odd is that there are people who seem so invested in keeping "Rodham" in the name that they will question methods that are used with no controversy in every other move discussion. bd2412 T 17:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: - Sorry for a late response. I think I have two primary motivations, 1) I see the WP:COMMONNAME rationale for a move as being overwhelming and obvious, and I just don't see a really convincing counter argument. If you look at most the counter arguments being presented, most of them run along the lines of "It's not what she wants" or "It's sexist". Neither of those strike me as good rationales. 2) Like bd2412, I'm having difficulty seeing how the 70% support was overlooked, particularly as it seemed to be supported by a more policy based argument. NickCT (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

ty both

NickCT I agree with the questionableness of an "it's sexist" type argument. This was I guess what was on my mind when I started the excessively titled thread: Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request#Survey of participant's gender (by biology or specified preference) and residency/nationality as presented in user page content in reference to !votes. To me the "more policy based argument" seems utterly clear. I even tried to change policy to see if it could fit and was surprised by the hostile reaction. I haven't yet seen the MR. But I think that this must have also left something to be desired. GregKaye 01:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: - re "the MR. But I think that this must have also left something to be desired." - Hahaha.... You mean the move review I wrote up. ;-)

That's OK. No offense taken. Honestly, I sorta agreed with NuclearWarfare's closing of the MR with no action. As I understand it, MR are usually only successful if there is some really glaring reason a RM was closed incorrect. I don't think that was the case here. I think it was just a basic and simple error in judgement. NickCT (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries are a gift you can give other editors[edit]

Please consider adding edit summaries to give other editors some inkling regarding the nature and purpose of your changes to Wikipedia pages. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:Women who notably have used a name that references surnames from both sides of their marriage/relationship[edit]

Category:Women who notably have used a name that references surnames from both sides of their marriage/relationship, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Nymf (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

TY[edit]

Have only just seen your comment following my diatribe re WP, which I appreciate. Am touched as ever by your moral support, Greg. Best, P-123 (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

P-123 One thing that I previously mentioned perhaps too subtly was that "One thing that I would appreciate would be if you could remove the walkaway reference from your user page." I know it was written by another editor but we both know that it does not represent how things happened. If you need a reference then see WP:User pages, "... Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence,... should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) ...". Please also refer to the previous AN/I for my opinion of the presentation of this type of content. GregKaye 08:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you are referring to. No idea what the walkaway reference is. No-one can tell other editors what opinions they can and cannot express. That would be censorship. I shan't continue this exchange. ~ P-123 (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

P-123 You are quite at liberty not to do so. I would have found it moral support for you do ditch the comments from Lor on your user page. You even made reference of something along the lines that you did not have the intention to walk away. I give moral support. You leave display of criticism aimed at me. GregKaye 22:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. (i.e. comments removed) ~ P-123 (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

P-123 very much appreciated and, for me, that's a weight lifted. Honestly this was not an attempt at censorship. From my point of view, there would be less of a problem with such content going on a talk page or other location where it could be responded to.

Regarding your other thoughtful comments on whichever talk page it was, it was certainly no diatribe and, to my reading, every point had relevance. Even I see, and that's with my sometimes faltering use of English, that there are some significant issues in Wikipedia and, for me to spot that, is saying something. GregKaye 08:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

TY, and sorry, I had overlooked the implications of those comments on a userpage - which is why I had not removed them before now. You were quite right to draw attention to them. :) ~ P-123 (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

(btw, I thought the walkaway reference, which you mentioned some time ago, was not to this but to something else on my userpage, which I removed after your message then. Just to put the record straight!) ~ P-123 (talk) 10:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bearing with what may well have been touchiness on my part on this issue. Some time ago I had commented, also in regard to another editor, "My personal perception is that the three of us are all towards the higher end of the emotional spectrum". Ironically in the thread, titled 'Request', you began by saying "Please do not keep criticising and telling me what to do." I appreciate that the current situation come within a lot of dialogue context. GregKaye 10:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

We are, and I remember it well! (You had a right to be sensitive about that, though, IMO, and it was crass of me not to notice how it could look.) What crazy times those were! ~ P-123 (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

A suggestion[edit]

How about you volunteer to stop your crusade, and instead take it to the MOS discussions and abide by consensus? The alternative is likely to be an enforced restriction. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

JzG can you please clarify this? GregKaye 22:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Only so far: your page moves and page move requests are disruptive and do not enjoy consensus. Go to WP:MOS and discuss changing the guidance there, don't try it at the article level or you'll end up banned from making grammar-based page moves or move requests. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

JzG Thanks for the perspective and advice. I will take another look at MOS. Off the top of your head can you think of any WP:PG that related to RMs on the basis of use of English? GregKaye 22:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion[edit]

Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, brother -- I see that you and I have both taken the neutral stance on this move proposal for now. I think it is courageous to stand neutral while contemplating the arguments, and move boldly into a firm position when the time arises. We shall not be buffeted by whimsy, and so I encourage courage, continuingly. I find your points well-thought and interesting, but they do actually incline me more towards shifting to supporting moving. I am waiting, still, to hear any response from opponents of moving as to the prevalence of "Hillary Clinton" not simply from she herself but from her own political opponents and allies, both leftward and rightward. Let me know if you come to feel like supporting-- I'd be honored to go that route together with you. Blessings!! Pandeist (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Naturalness criterion and natural disambiguation[edit]

While I agree with you in some WP:RM and WP:AT discussions and disagree with you in others (i.e., I don't lump you into the same "does not understand Wikipedia titling at all, and is trying to warp it into something radically different" camp as B2C), I have to concur with DickLyon and RGloucester (who otherwise hardly ever seem to agree on anything) that you're sorely confusing the naturalness criterion of AT policy with natural disambiguation simply because they use the same word. There is no connection between them. They're separate and distinct, and generally don't interact at all.^* Your two somewhat recent proposals at WT:AT have made not a whole lot of sense because of this confusion, and it also explains quite a number of your less supportable RMs. Please just re-read them carefully, and internalize the distinction. Think of the naturalness criterion policy as the "intuitiveness of the base title" criterion. This is a determination that is made before, and usually not affected by any need for, or form of, disambiguation. Think of the natural disambiguation policy as the "flows naturally as an English-language phrase" disambiguation pattern, a consideration that applies, necessarily, after a "natural" (intuitive) base title has been chosen, since it is a matter of how, linguistically, the base title and the disambiguator relate. If you get this right, an enormous amount of time and energy spent on kind of "WTF?"-ish article title policy and requested move debates will just never need to happen again. We all have way more productive things to spend our time here doing.  :-) [^*There are sometimes cases where we have two alternative titles that seem about equal under the criteria, but one needs disambiguation and the other doesn't; in those cases we more often go with the non-disambiguated one. But these are outlying cases, and still do not in any way blur the distinction between the two "natural" provisions in WP:AT.]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish the related WP:PG wording is:

• Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English.

To my mind this is nonsensical as it is presented in a way that, at the very least, puts it totally at odds with parenthetical disambiguation. Take the example of "!!! (album)" as first on the list. I do not think that editors would typically take the entirety of this title as a link and this is demonstrated on the !!! page in the use of the link "''[[!!! (album)|!!!]]''". Similarly I do not think that editors would typically type a term in the form of "foobar (baz)" into a search engine. In effect, according to the argument that I have presented, WP:NATURALNESS is written in a way in which it has little practical difference from WP:NATURAL. I believe that this is one of the reasons that, in my perception, many Wikipedia editors take a form of WP:NATURALdisambiguation, to be a policy preference. The only preference that we should have is to use the most appropriate titling that can be applied to any particular subject to meet WP:GOALS. GregKaye 03:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I will try to explain this even more clearly (and apologize in advance if I'm overdoing it). "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for...", like the rest of the basic naming criteria (COMMONNAME, etc.) applies only to the base title, and does not include any parenthetic disambiguator. Disambiguators are added to titles, when necessary, that have already been arrived at via the naming criteria. The disambiguation criteria are independent of the base naming criteria. Everyone seems to get this but you.  :-( If I create a design specification for a van, with a trailer hitch, those specifications are not also specifications for the design of various trailers; they're just van specs. A parenthetical disambiguator is not part of the title to which the basic criteria apply, but is an add-on, an external trailer. It cannot possibly be any other way, or all parenthetic disambiguation would violate WP:COMMONNAME automatically, since no one in the world is actually named "John Smith (physicist)", and there is no show literally titled Helix (TV series). If this still isn't clear, have a look at IMDb, which also uses parenthetic disambiguation, and which also has naming criteria (e.g., use an actor's professional name as it appears in the majority of productions in which they're credited). No one acting under the name John Smith has (I'm pretty sure) ever literally been credited as "John Smith (3)"; the "(3)" in the IMDb page title is a parenthetic disambiguator required because two pages there, as here, cannot have the exact same title. You wrote, "In effect, according to the argument that I have presented, WP:NATURALNESS is written in a way in which it has little practical difference from WP:NATURAL." Clearly, no one else believes this, and thus "the argument that [you] have presented" is mistaken and is proceeding from a misunderstanding of the policy. It's very difficult to confuse WP:NATURALNESS with WP:NATURAL; they have nothing in common but accidentally using the same word. Yet you seem to be doing this against all reason, willfully. You're simply refusing to accept that your reading isn't correct and that the policy isn't really crazy. We don't even need to analyze this any more; please just accept that you didn't read it right the first time, and move on. No matter how hard you want to misinterpret the policy as senseless, it isn't. The worst it is, is unfortunately overusing the word "natural" in two different ways, for two wholly unrelated aspects of article naming. There are some ways to clarify this, perhaps by changing "naturalness" in the basic criteria to "intuitiveness", by just explicitly stating that the criteria only apply to the base name not any parenthetic DAB, or whatever..  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish Thank you for your thoughtful reply. However, please re read what I said. Words matter and, if there is a specific meaning that is meant to be conveyed by WP:NATURALNESS, then this is what the words should say. You say "Everyone seems to get this". Maybe so within the context of WT:AT but I would love to see any evidence of the quantity of Wikipedia editors, say, after an initial reading of WP:AT, who understand a difference between Naturalness and NATURAL. Your input here has been really helpful and from what you say maybe the PG might be worded as something like:

• Naturalness – The base title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English.

or:

• Naturalness – The title, excluding any attached disambiguation, is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English.

or even:

• Naturalness – The title* is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English.

* please note: this reference to "title" is not considered as being inclusive of any attached form of disambiguation

You say this that this refers to a "base title" and yet the term "base title" does not appear anywhere in the content of Wikipedia:Article titles. The text, however, that does appear at Wikipedia:Article titles reads: "An article title is the large heading displayed above the article's content. The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." There is no distinction made to "base title". The only talk is of "title". The text also, I think over prescriptively, presents "For example, it would be inappropriate to title an article "Queen (rock band)", as Queen (band) is precise enough to distinguish the rock band from other uses of the term "Queen"." Again here "Queen (band)" is accurately described as being the title and yet, following Special:WhatLinksHere/Queen (band) and looking up August 19#Events we rapidly find the text "*[[1951]] – [[John Deacon]], English bass player and songwriter ([[Queen (band)|Queen]])".

I do not think, within a content on article titles, that using a word like title in ambiguous ways sets a very firm foundation for the presentation of the rest of the content. We are not writing religion where various things are taken as matters of interpretation. We are writing policy and guidance and this type of content is, arguably, best presented in specific ways. GregKaye 06:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

1. However, please re read what I said – I have, and doing so does not change my response. I'm reading your new reply carefully.
2. within the context of WT:AT – The context of WT:AT is Wikipedia article title policy, which is, obviously, also the context of WP:AT itself. It, in turn, is the naming policy that covers every single article here. By extension, this is also the context of all RM (and MR) discussions. So what other context are you talking about, exactly? You later said within a conte[x]t on article titles, but that is the same context as that of WP:AT and WT:AT and WP:RM. Maybe you're trying to say you think that WT:AT regulars understand it and no one else does, but that clearly isn't true. Which brings us to ...
3. any evidence of the quantity of Wikipedia editors, say, after an initial reading of WP:AT, who understand a difference between Naturalness and NATURAL – The evidence is that both of the distinct policies are being consistently followed in actual practice, largely without incident. This is prima facie proof. Further evidence is that RM discussions, with few exceptions other than those involving you, do not confuse the two concepts with any frequency. If they did, we would have reworded them years ago. I'm still in favor of some rewording just to pre-empt any further such confusions, rare though they may be.
4. I'm not sure why you keep referring to WP:PG; nothing about article titling is mentioned anywhere at that policy.
5. Any of your three rewrites could work. I think I would go with "title (excluding any parenthetical disambiguator)", because we don't usually use asterisk footnotes in policy page, "base title" (as you note) isn't WP:AT terminology, and "any attached disambiguation" can't refer to anything but a parenthetical disambiguator (natural disambiguation isn't "attached", but an integral rewording to avoid the need to attach a parenthetical).
6. I never said "base name" was a term used at WP:AT; it was my own wording, simply used to explain here on your talk page.
7. I do not think, within a conte[x]t on article titles, that using a word like title in ambiguous ways sets a very firm foundation – Then just fix it, or propose that it be fixed. I think I'll do this myself, just to be done with this.
8. We are not writing ... where various things are taken as matters of interpretation. Of course we are, and of course they are. You like to cite WP:PG a lot; read it again: "Use common sense when interpreting and applying policies and guidelines". How can we be interpreting P & G if they're not subject to interpretation? LOL. "Interpretation of policy" is a stock Wikipedia talk phrase.[13] Virtually everything about WP policy and guidelines is subject to interpretation, by design.
9. Since your trio of proposed rewordings make it clear that you do understand what is really meant at AT, persisting in suggesting that it somehow can't mean that because AT doesn't presently explicitly say that "title" in WP:NATURALNESS means the title without any attached disambiguator, is just you playing some word game. You've wasted an enormous amount of editorial time and energy (much of it other people's) with persistent, WP:POINTy proposals and move requests (or oppositions thereto), all on the basis of this potential problem that AT uses "title" in two different ways, and your imaginary scenario in which they can't actually mean two different things, despite the fact that no one actually seems to be confused on this point, at least not often enough for us to care about. I know you are smart enough to actually know that the same word can be used two different ways in the same document. I know you know that if you detect a potentially confusing wording conflict, you can propose or even just boldly make a clarifying edit. It is quite literally logically impossible for WP:NATURALNESS to include any parenthetical disambiguator, but you've persisted for a couple of years now in borderline-disruptive RM behavior pushing the viewpoint that it somehow must. So, how about an end to that?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

PS: The only preference that we should have is to use the most appropriate titling that can be applied to any particular subject to meet WP:GOALS. – This is too vague to act on, and sounds like a proposal to delete most of WP:AT.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish ☺ Thank you again. On your points.

2. Context of WT:AT - all I was saying was that people that edit there may on average have more understanding of titling policies than other editors.

3. Editors have generated/or relocated a number of John Smith, for example, articles to titles using middle names or initials that just weren't used in life. One editor even expressed that the adoption of an unused middle name was proposed so as to avoid the need for disambiguation. These are editors that have read WP:AT and still gained very erroneous understandings.

4. I was presenting WP:PG really as a representation of all contents starting "Wikipedia:..." which constitute Policy and Guidelines. Where does policy stop and guideline begin? Different editors may have different opinions. I had started saying WP:PG to cover both references.

9. You say: "It is quite literally logically impossible for WP:NATURALNESS to include any parenthetical disambiguator," so why is the wording written to state, "The title is one that ..."? Why? The title, as is expressly presented from the opening text of the project page says that the title is the whole thing. You accuse me of WP:POINTy behaviour. Everything that I have done is has been done in good faith so as to build as best that I have considered it possible, solid content in the encyclopedia.

GregKaye 18:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

2. That's true of all policy/guideline pages vs. what they set policy or guidelines about. MOS regulars are more aware of style nuances on WP that are average editors, and so on. I.e., the observation doesn't change anything.

3. That's because WP:NATURALDIS is an alternative to parenthetic disambiguation we [should] always consider, and WP:COMMONNAME does not trump all other concerns. The "John E. Smith" kind of case really isn't relevant to this discussion. As for misinterpreting AT as imply that WP using a sourceable middle name that subject avoided using in real life, well, lots of people misunderstand various things about various policies and guidelines. That doesn't mean that the particular misunderstanding we've been discussing above should be perpetuated. It sounds like you're saying "It's okay for me to persist in pursuing RM cases that intentionally distort the meaning of WP:NATURALNESS to make the point that our policy pages need some work."

4. I see what you mean. When you use a shortcut that way, people think you mean the page to which the shortcut redirects. If I write WP:CUE, you'll probably think that means the Cue sports wikiproject, not WP material about cue sports generally, I would think. :-)

9. Because words can convey more than one meaning; that's simply how human language works. We've already been over this. Why was it written that way? Because WP editors are not perfect. Just get over it. I does not mean what you [pretend to] think it means there. It rationally cannot possibly mean that. So, yes, I do believe you are being WP:POINTy about this, quite excessively so. And protracted, pointless, stubbornly obtuse debating about titles has actually nothing at all to do with article content, so your "to build as best ... as possible, solid content in the encyclopedia" is a super-lame excuse. I'm suspecting we've simply hit an "I will never admit I'm wrong because I'm temperamentally incapable of doing so, and will argue you to death about it" point here. I've said what needed to be said. You can accept it, or continue to make an embarrassment of yourself in these AT/RM discussions. I took this to your talk page for a reason. You are coming off as an irrational fool with severe reading comprehension and reasoning difficulties in these discussions; either that, or a jackass pretending to be a fool just to create lengthy, stupid, time-wasting distractions in RM and at WT:AT. I'm trying to help you. Yes, I realize I'm being blunt to somewhere near the point of WP:DICK here, but sometimes that's necessary in my experience. I think you're largely a valuable contributor on WP, but this one thing is sucking up so much of so many people's editorial time it just really has to stop.

Rather that continue arguing with you, I've simply attempted to fix the guideline to short-circuit any further confusion or mock-confusion about the difference between NATURALNESS and NATURALDIS. Since it should resolve the very issue you've been harping on, I'm hoping you'll support this, and we can all move past this noise.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish I want to thank you for the edit to WP:AT that made here which adds the content "(exclusive of any added [[#Disambiguation|parenthetical disambiguation]])" to the text so that it now reads:

Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title (exclusive of any added parenthetical disambiguation) usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.

I have edited to:

Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title (exclusive of disambiguating additions) usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.

As mentioned, the text that that is presented at Wikipedia:Article titles reads: "An article title is the large heading displayed above the article's content. The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles."

The immediately following content says "Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.)" and I am very glad of the clarification of the definition of "title" previously used.

What would you think of the use of a text:

Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title (exclusive of disambiguating additions) will convey what the subject is actually called in English.

Lastly, I was concerned about your edit comment regarding "utterly pointless RM debates". What do you mean? Which utterly pointless RM debates? If you want to make an accusation then please make it clearly. GregKaye 02:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Editorial changes and suggestions regarding the text of WP:AT, and edit summaries of edits thereto, are better discussed at the related thread already open at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Minor tweak to end pointless confusion between WP:NATURALNESS and WP:NATURALDIS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish I would be grateful if you could respond to my last question. GregKaye 13:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Did so at WT:AT.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Need your help again[edit]

Hello Greg, hope you are well. I was wondering if you would be able to help me out regarding a matter that has proved difficult to solve. Is there a way to get statistics in regards to page views relating to a category of article. For example, if I wanted to see how many page views the entire Gastroenterology articles have had as a collective, would that be possible. It has its own wikiproject.

Secondly and on a different matter entirely, I see what you mean about the BBC documentary subtitling the translation wrongly. I was surprised to see that they did not mention the name used by the person. When you mentioned it I thought they used Islamic State or IS as parenthetical qualification of Daesh or whatever it is that the different people use but they have skipped it all together. It is very strange.

Thirdly and I promise it will be the last question; how does consensus work exactly in regards to our discussions on the ISIL talk page? I ask this in reference to the discussion you started on Ideology. I remember we agreed to include Salafism, Jihadi Salafism and Wahhabism. Since that discussion that ideology infobox has changed numerous times. What is the point of having such a long discussion, reaching consensus and then only to have different content on the page. Maybe I am missing something obvious and I was hoping you could explain how this works exactly. Regards. Mbcap (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap things are ok here though spending too much time on Wikipedia.

I only know how to stat search like http://stats.grok.se/en/201504/Gastroenterology so as to view visits of pages individually. To the left of the reading area of the page you also have the What links here function which may, to an extent, give some source of visitor information.

The whole issue of name representation is, I think a tricky one, while I think that there are ethical arguments for using, for example, Kaley Cocco-Sweeting (as she now consistently uses) and Hillary Rodham Clinton which she may not have used despite preference because of political pressure, as you may have noticed, I am against "Islamic State" because of ambiguity related issues in relation to other groups. I often think that Wikipedia lacks a moral compass on issues like these but I'm appalled by Reuters and the BBC who, to me, seem incomprehensible.

I used to chat a lot with an editor that described Wikipedia as a bear and snake pit and, unfortunately, I think there are some editors that will only stop editing against consensus unless they are forced to stop via WP:AN/I or other admin intervention or if an issue is highlighted with other editors to the extent that they don't feel the motivation for that reason continue with disruption. I personally think that in many cases just talking with people with a healthy dose of AGF can help. The main content is written up at WP:CONSENSUS of which I only really know the basics. After that it is a matter of presenting things at AN/I which then becomes a potentially brutal arena. There was the recent IP at Talk:ISIL that, I think, rightly got swiftly banned but, in other cases such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive881#JoeM and Islam, a safe combination? there are editors that I think can be treated quite harshly. My favoured first action can be to be in direct contact with an editor on their personal talk page to to personally present a case but, in doing this, I once made a big error in misreading ques and then lacking tact. On another occasion, after putting in a lot of effort with an editor, I then ended up accused of hounding.

I'm not sure how much of this is relevant but I'm sure you will find your own approach. Talk:Israel has recently shown examples of uses of consensus discussions from which I think lessons can be learned. GregKaye 09:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Pashtuns[edit]

Hello. You may be interested to oppose or comment on the recent move request at Talk:Pashtuns, because "Pashtuns" is clearly the concise and common plural demonym, therefore the best option for the article title. Regards, Khestwol (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Khestwol I am a regular at WP:RM and was sure to find it. Always happy for you to drop by but to let you know that especially on controversial issues some editors might count this as canvassing. GregKaye 12:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Khestwol needs to cite reliable sources that explicitly state what he's trying to say.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Any reply?[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamic_economic_jurisprudence#Requested_move_19_April_2015 --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Move comments in Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request[edit]

Hi, I'm asking editors (on both sides of the question) who have made responses to individual !votes in the survey section to move those discussions to subsections in the discussion section. That will keep things tidy. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey thanks.[edit]

Thanks for sticking up for me at the ANI discussion. Sadly, I guess now we know an editor may falsify facts, edit war to keep this from being revealed, insult others, and falsely accuse an opponent of having a "topic ban" and get off with no consequence at all. Such is the nature of the discussion as a whole. I know how you feel -- I'm not feeling like staying neutral too much longer either. Blessings!! Pandeist (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Pandeist No problem. I did not pay attention to the people in the thread at the time but I have also noticed your kindness in a variety of places and than you for that. Be well!! sceptics expression of the same GregKaye 18:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Move request changed[edit]

Hello GregKaye! This is just to notify you that I have modified my requested move at Talk:Masjid al-Haram‎ and limited it to one title ("Al-Masjid al-Haram"). So again vote! maybe? Khestwol (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Khestwol can I ask you to consider just withdrawing the RM or keeping it as is? I started writing up a draft for an oppose but didn't want to submit until checking with you. This is written in respect in regard to your editing across projects. GregKaye 01:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to explain. I had chosen Sacred Mosque as anglicised name because it was not only unambiguous (al-Masjid al-Haram is the primary topic for it) but also more WP:CONCISE than other anglicised names. And it is the direct translation from "Al-Masjid al-Haram". But I agreed with Fauzan that its not common. Hence I had to withdraw/modify. Now I support my current proposal for "Al-Masjid al-Haram". Thank you! Khestwol (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Ideology section of several articles[edit]

Hi, I had to ask you because you are active on these topics. Please keep an eye on ISIL, especially its infobox's ideology section (recent examples of disruptive edit-warring by a user just coming back from a 1 week topic-ban: [14], [15], [16]). Khestwol (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye, take into account that Khestol is currently the subject of a proposed WP:SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blizzio), and edits to remove sectarian language persistenly reinserted into articles (while adding nothing constructive or substantive to the articles in question) should not be considered edit warring. Nulla Taciti (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Nulla Taciti I will take into account the necessity to present Wikipedia as an encyclopedia as of first concern but, yes, I will take any such information into account but only as background information in editing. GregKaye 18:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hillary[edit]

Hi Greg. Just wanted to mention what an interesting and epic discussion you started at the Hillary renaming page. It shall be remembered as long as Wikipedia is spoken about, in the lore of the wooded ones, the tales of those who dwell under bridges, and in the halls of grey academia for centuries to come (or for at least a couple of weeks). Nice work, and I'm interested now how much more will be added. My prediction about a 'Stephen King size' page may have been accurate! Cheers, salutations, and one of those spinning-star templates if I knew how to give one. Randy Kryn 9:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Randy Kryn I hope not but who knows. You peaked my interest. SK's longest novels were:

• The Stand: 1,153 pages
• It: 1,138 pages
• Under the Dome: 1,072 pages
• Insomnia: 787 pages
• Desperation: 690 pages
• Needful Things: 690 pages
• Dreamcatcher: 620 pages
• Duma Key: 607 pages
• The Tommyknockers: 558 pages
• Bag of Bones: 529 pages

I think we have a long way to go not just in quantity but also, IMO, in relevance to the plot. As much for my ref as anything its also worth noting that the page falls short of the arguably more important issue of:

• Information for "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images"

This ranks with 330 distinct authors and 2,768 edits in 933,645 bytes.

In this context I'll wait to see what happens at:

• Information for "Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request"

I somehow doubt that she will move mohammed let alone usurp the king .

Thanks for your kindness.

GregKaye 10:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting stats. I've read some of those, but haven't heard of 'Duma Key', will have to look at it. And thanks for your kindness, made me lol. Some of those German pretzels may bring you over to the salty/doughy side. Mitt Romney must be turning over in his grave (which he occupies during the day) in envy that his 'Willard' name hasn't even started a fist fight here. As for names, I hope the new baby and possibly future queen is named after its grandmum. Randy Kryn 11:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Randy Kryn FYI origins are at least one thing that "House of Windsor" and Pretzels have in common.

Re: ".. Friends say Romney feels nudge to consider a 2016 presidential run" it might have been interesting to see a Rodham : Romney stand off. GregKaye 11:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Balochs[edit]

Hello. Would you like to help find another optimal title at talk:Balochs? Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request[edit]

Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation[edit]

Greg, I noticed that you have edited one of BD2412's barnstars to include some criticism.[17] It seems that you disagree about BD2412's response to someone else's question about alternatives to the word "disambiguation". BD2412 answered that disambiguation pages have been called that since at least 2002, and he linked to evidence of that. Apparently, you would have instead referred the questioner to this April 2015 discussion. But wasn't that April discussion about alternative ways of accomplishing disambiguation, rather than about alternatives to the word "disambiguation"? In other words, in the April 2015 discussion, it doesn't seem like you were suggesting to replace that word "disambiguation" with the word "navigation" in Wikipedia article titles. In my opinion, the person who later asked BD2412 about alternatives to the word "disambiguation" was not asking about anything more than whether that word should be replaced by another word in all Wikipedia titles. So the answer BD2412 gave seems reasonable to me, and not tendentious at all. But if you really think it was tendentious, and you really think BD2412 does not deserve the barnstar that you previously gave him, I think it would be better to just leave him a note saying that you withdraw the barnstar, rather than trying to change the barnstar from an award into something else.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant Thanks for your concern in this which is appreciated:

My opening post in the mentioned thread read:

Disambiguation pages are navigation pages

Example text

In contrast a search on:

• article navigation -Wikipedia gets "About 555,000,000 results"

while a search on:

• article disambiguation -Wikipedia only gets "About 490,000 results

The ratio is >1000:1

As a result of, I think, a misguided focus on disambiguation I think that Wikipedia regularly slips into WP:BUREAUCRACY often neglecting the role of a WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA to provide valuable WP:DESCRIPTION.

The result, IMO, is that editors can often favour emphasis on dissection rather than on presentation of subject descriptions.

For reference please refer to Web navigation and any relevant content at Disambiguation (disambiguation).

In the current state of the "WP:Disambiguation" page there are only 17 instances of content containing "descri" and I think that, to an extent, we can miss the point. I suggest a refocus of this content and would encourage editors to put some thought into this."

In all this BD2412 has proven at least to me that he can do what he likes. It is his page. He can delete the addition or the barnstar at his choosing. On a personal view, I think that editors wanting to "keep Wikipedia moving in positive directions" would not just ridicule ideas in a context that they are criticised of fanaticism. GregKaye 15:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, if BD2412 ridiculed me and treated me like a fanatic then I would not be happy about it. I'm not going to examine whether he did that to you, though, because I have lots to do this weekend off wiki. All I looked at was his answer to the question someone else asked, and I thought it was a decent answer. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant to clarify it was BD2412 who received the comment "Sounds like fanaticism" from the other editor yet he still persisted in what seemed to me to be deliberate sabotage of the thread.

I try my best to show good will but their are limits. GregKaye 16:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Okay, I have just investigated, and I believe you may be taking that fanaticism thing somewhat out of context. The editor who commented about fanaticism also said this: "Of course, bd2412, you are not a fanatic. You are a prolificly-editing disambiguation expert who always says sensible things. But 'our disambiguation pages be as concisely written as possible' is something to choke on, it is something that a fanatic may pick up out of context and run mad with."Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant I honestly do not want to re run this whole thing.

In my 13:43, 30 March 2015 edit I fairly mentioned the examples of Leeds North West (UK Parliament constituency) and M-185 (Michigan highway) and fairly stated: "Precision is not the issue here and I think that "clarification" deserves a mention."

To this I received the I think absurd and ludicrous reply, "This sounds like something that has less to do with the content of disambiguation pages than with the desire of some editors to move titles like George Washington to George Washington (planter, American Revolutionary War general, and President of the United States born February 22, 1732) or something like that. ..."

and "We could just as absurdly move Steve Henson (politician) to Steve Henson (Democratic member of the Georgia Senate born March 30, 1959 in Indianapolis, Indiana).".

This kind of tactic of sending arguments, imo, overboard and into the absurd is not something I can respect whoever the arguments are addressed to.

What did I do to deserve that????

All I said was that "I think that "clarification" deserves a mention."

GregKaye 17:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't take it too personally. Reductio ad absurdum has been getting on people's nerves for millennia.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant As I said: "This kind of tactic of sending arguments, imo, overboard and into the absurd is not something I can respect whoever the arguments are addressed to." Please can we leave it at that? I mistakenly gave respect. I rectified the situation. GregKaye 17:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Have a good weekend. It is so beautiful here today in New England.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant Just for the record, the editor who made the glowing "... You are a prolificly-editing disambiguation expert ..." also presented the comparably ridiculous and I think scaremongering example, in the very same edit, of:

• Steve Henson (Democratic member of the Georgia Senate born March 30, 1959 in Indianapolis, Indiana).

Editors should work by debate and not by self congratulation and ridicule. How was this a response to me saying that, "I think that "clarification" deserves a mention"? GregKaye 13:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I did not "sabotage" your thread. I expressed my opinion of the possible outcome of an untempered proposal. You disagree with my opinion. That's fine, but interpreting disagreement as sabotage is excessive. bd2412 T 17:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

BD2412 you are well aware that no aspect of policy / guideline exists in a vacuum and, within this context, I simply expressed, "I think that "clarification" deserves a mention". If it wasn't "deliberate sabotage", what was it? GregKaye 17:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It was a caution about the direction things could go without reasonable limitations being set. If clarification goes beyond a unique disambiguating term, then what limit is there? bd2412 T 17:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

You have read WP:AT. The whole thing is over loaded with limitations. I said what I said and you presented George Washington, a character who is familiar to all, with a 101 character, I don't know what it was, presented in bright red letters. You could have, for instance, given a caution that reasonable limits should be set. Instead you lampooned and derided. GregKaye 18:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not an imaginary scenario. There are, in fact, people who have argued in the past that George Washington should be a disambiguation page, because there are multiple people who have had that name. From your perspective, this may be a new issue, but it is in fact part of a larger question that has been revisited many times. I apologize for leading you to feel abused by my response. bd2412 T 19:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

You are fine to present any justification or make any crystalballing interpretation such as of hurt feelings as you like. At Talk:George Washington how close did anything come to a suggestion such as:

• George Washington (planter, American Revolutionary War general, and President of the United States born February 22, 1732)?

How far did any such suggestion get?

At WP:RM regular and actual proposals include the recent Metro M1 (Prague) → Metro M1. Then at WT:AT when editors, who I very rarely see at WP:RM, suggests a edits that would completely remove even the Leeds North West (UK Parliament constituency) and M-185 (Michigan highway) references, no one either seems to notice or care to object. We are meant to be building an intelligible and I would argue navigable encyclopedia. GregKaye 06:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr.[edit]

Following the closure of a recent RfC you participated in, I have started an RfC on the separate but related issue of commas after Jr. and Sr.. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr. and feel free to comment there. Thanks! —sroc 💬 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Sarah Brown[edit]

I wish you had started a discussion before launching that particular RM with a title very few will support. I really think what we need there is a multiple choice survey made up of a list of titles, including the current one, so that participants can rank them all against each other. I tried to that a year or so ago[18], but it was too soon after another RM, and was immediately closed. Now this RM will just prevent anyone from starting another RM. And now it's probably too late to withdraw. To get to a stable title that has consensus support, we need a variant of what I created. Next time... --В²C ☎ 17:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Now it looks like we lost our chance to make a thoughtful proposal that would lead to consensus for a year. Please be more careful and seek collaboration with titles that have a controversial history like this one does. --В²C ☎ 18:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

HC & HRC Books[edit]

FYI, I've reorganized List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton a bit.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Anythingyouwant From my understanding achieving this from this in the context of an article titled "List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton" brings a lot of clarity. What would you think of starting an article with a title such as "List of published materials by Hillary Rodham Clinton or List of books by Hillary Clinton. I also wondered if it might be appropriate to use "List of books and studies by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton/List of books and studies by or about Hillary Clinton"? GregKaye 06:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Other Black merge discussion[edit]

Hi Greg, do you have any views on the proposed merger of Other Black? I ask because not many editors have contributed to the discussion, and I saw that you moved Other White earlier today. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Antisemitism. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

VQuakr in your actions can I ask you politely to please consider what it is you are protecting. Please also consider that you have a history of editing down the minimum thread settings in the Antisemitism page which went directly against then currently presented content in the talk page and that you did this without talk page notification. Please also consider that there was nothing in my edits that went against talk page content while my edits were supported by talk page comment. Please consider that the previous revert fallaciously presented "as per TP" which, as you can well see, was absurd.

Please also consider a wider perspective. We are meant to be building an NPOV encyclopedia and yet, as far as I can see, there are huge differences in the way that articles such as Anti-Americanism/Anti-British sentiment and Antisemitism are presented. It is with sincere intent in belief in the mantra to which I constantly return that peace can still come and whose words at every occasion cause me to well up.

What is your purpose? Seriously, what?

The use of wording in the article facilitates a continuation of the disconnect between Israeli and Jewish responsibility for their actions and a fair and equitable form of accountability for actions performed. There are many issues that I think could be gainfully addressed in the article so as to bring it neutrally in line with other contents. Despite this, after the treatment that the Antisemitism → Anti-Semitism discussions received in a way that, as I see it, utterly departed from standards presented in regard to p & g and neutrality, I pretty much gave up with the article. An editor tries to stick up for direct application of p & g and for a use of wording that has connection with the identities that they represent and that editor gets attacked for making "big waves".

As I see it the double standards on the page were starkly highlighted in recent discussions on an inclusion of reference of "Judeophobia". This rejection which you supported was made on the basis of WP:UNDUE and yet nothing ever been similarly done in regard to references to, "the relative terms anti-Semitism", "antisemitism" and the rarely used "anti-semitism" whose significant contrast in usage is clearly shown in Ngrams.

Please can you consider the wider implications of your actions in cutting talk page discussions with undisclosed edits of archival settings and claims of wp:deadhorse in relation to topics that, in any other situation, would enjoy clear policy support. Why should I start a new thread, in the current situation, when existing threads are not being replied to? Do you really want to present the US state department Report on Anti-Semitism as speaking of "antisemitism"?

Please, and I ask sincerely, give some consideration to the issues mentioned. GregKaye 09:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. VQuakr (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

VQuakr Exactly same applies both ways. The previous revert presented the apparently erroneous summary as per TP. All TP content supported the changes with stats mentioned, with the mention of issues like and undue and with specific support. You however edit against TP content even when there are existing threads on the topic. Please follow your own advice. GregKaye 17:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: Sadistic personality disorder[edit]

Hello Grekaye, I gave a rather short answer on the related board regarding experts and wanted to clarify what I meant. The issue of interpreting DSM and ICD requires some training in order to be able to do it competently. I did a pilot systematic review a few years ago on long term efficacy of ADHD medication. I had to consult with a psychiatrist when it came to interpreting DSM-VI and ICD-10 so I know it can be tricky. This stuff is way over my head so I am afraid I will not be able to contribute much. It seems you have raised the issue on a more appropriate board and hopefully it will provide some direction for the article. Good luck. Mbcap (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap appreciate. As I hope I expressed, it is just in the context of situations that I might have personally described as "conditions" or "dispositions" as related to safe, sane and consensual practices as related to BDSM and, I am guessing, related practice. I personal worry is that clinical diagnosis can be, well, clinical and I have no idea why the medical community declares disorder in a case where I would have thought that "condition" would do. I find it a challenge sometimes trying to advocate NPOV content in Wikipedia when it doesn't seem to me that we live in an NPOV world. GregKaye 09:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I hear you and agree to an extent. I think the medical community does a good job with "medical" and "surgical" pathologies but psychiatry is a different in that it is very subjective. A lot of the research is affected by the observer effect. The criticisms you make are shared by many, trust me. As far as I am aware sadistic personality disorder is not a condition or if it is, maybe it means a case by where the "disposition" falls into a harm causing category. Even condition that are present currently in the ICD-10 and DSM are subject to much disagreement. For example ADHD by some is not considered a real condition. This you can see first hand in the British Journal of Psychiatry where Dr Sami Tamimi argues this very point. I gather it may be the same for sadomasochism or BDSM or other such dispositions. POV content and the DSM have a long history. Believe it or not, homosexuality used to be a condition in the DSM at one point. Whether the POV is still present, that is something that could do with being researched. You have said that you try to advocate NPOV content and I would encourage that despite the possible obstacles. Please do continue with the good work. I shall keep my eye on the related discussions. Mbcap (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride![edit]

GM food RfC[edit]

Note about this RfC where you !voted. I tweaked the statement to make it more clear that it is about eating GM food and health. I'm notifying each person who !voted, in case that matters to you. Sorry for the trouble. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

GregKaye:

I noticed that the ANI that I opened was closed with the sentence: "Non admin closure." Do non-admins have the authority to close those reports? Who is in charge around here? Most web sites have clear lines of authority, but this place seems like anarchy where anyone with an agenda and the time to pursue it can override common sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Jytdog_repeatedly_disregarding_requests_for_explanations_concerning_an_edit

I am annoyed by the reason for the closure. How can "refusing to provide a good-faith explanation for [a] reversion" be described as a "content dispute"? Other people, not I, raised the content issues. I did not even use the terms "GMO" or "GM food" in my report (except in quoting the source). It was Jytdog that started the ad hominem attacks. Does Wikipedia ever enforce its WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and WP:CIVIL policies? After this experience of hours of wasted time trying to negotiate with someone who refuses to consider any viewpoint but his own and being the victim of a campaign of character assassination, I doubt I will ever spend any time in the future improving Wikipedia in my areas of expertise. Why tolerate the abuse and wasted time for no compensation? At least I no longer feel guilty about always taking from Wikipedia without ever giving back.

Incidentally, while I am flattered that you think I have a "high level of wiki knowhow," please note that other users in the WHO citation thread first raised the WP:SYNTH and WP:RS/AC issues. As to talk page quoting, that is explained in the instructions for submitting an ANI issue. GrayDuck156 (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

GrayDuck156 (also pinging Medeis and Jytdog due to a personal view of notifying fellow editors of comments being made that concern them. requests for not being pinged are very welcome)

Re: "Who is in charge around here?" Lol, if I had any previous doubts, this proves to me that you are newish to the wiki. (I am taken my previous doubts as a compliment regarding competence). Everyone and no-one is my interpretation and, despite what WP:NOT says, I think that (in a very positive sense) Wikipedia is an experiment (actually a fairly effective practice) in Anarchy. This, in itself, is not a criticism as leaderless consensus based leadership can work.

I think that a breakdown in this arises in discussion closure. In non digitised conversations the normal convention, even when there is a leader, would be to ask something like "is there anything else". In real world normality people do not just shut things down.

I disagree with the close as stating "This is a content dispute that belongs on the article talk page metastasizing into a pointless all-out brawl". I certainly agree that there was a content dispute but also agreed with you that WP:DISRUPTSIGNS that (Jytdog has) violated: "A disruptive editor is an editor who...repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits..."" I find the interpretation "brawl" to be quite demeaning. To my mind, if anything editors have simply wanted to ensure the application of clear and direct talk page conversation and I do not see that this has been supported in ANI.

Three editors supported presented reasonable request for action to be taken with only Jytdog claiming that action was not required. The third supporters was given criticism for wanting to "right great wrongs" but no one in any way presented a defence for Jytdog's disruptive behaviour.

I have invested time in Jytdog and have done what I can to try to present some good faith perspectives which, to avoid drama, extended to talk page discussion here. My personal view is that it can be best to address issues of disruption first and non policy based editor behaviours first on talk page. I agree with Jytdog in regard to some of arguments he has presented not in relation to the WHO citation but cannot condone his behaviour on this point.

"Does Wikipedia ever enforce its WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and WP:CIVIL policies?" Regularly and action taken is decided on a case by case basis. Often when an editor has engaged in disruptive behaviour there will at least be comment on this behaviour in the close. However, in my view, ANI often has nothing to do with incident resolution but adopts a remit that is more focussed on application of sanctions. I believe that this lack of attention on reconciliation and behaviour rectification is a major cause of falling editor numbers in Wikipedia.

GL with the GM topics. I have done my best. GregKaye 06:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• I acted as an uninvolved editor, and have received thanks for the closure. If anyone wants to reopen that thread they can do so, but I would suggest it might be looked upon by others as WP:BOOMERANG further disruption. Thanks for inviting me, but I think this is already far too meta, and I have no further comments. μηδείς (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I have to admit I was relieved to see it closed, as being involved in any ANI is a bit stressful, however it is bothering me that a very serious issue is not resolved. I looked and could not find mention of whether lying in an edit summary and evading related questioning on the talk page is considered a problem. It seems there should be some guideline preventing this sort of activity, but if that is not the case, I would rather be told this directly at the (re-opened) AN/I. I don't mind the potential for BOOMERANG, if no one else wants to re-open the thread I will do it. (Please ping me in this case.) Thanks, petrarchan47คุก 21:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Right to reply[edit]

I am unblocked and more than ready to participate in any activity that you initiate that will provide the right of reply for future editors who may find themselves in the exact situation that I found myself in during my two ANIs. Also, I insist that you ping me if you find a similar situation occurring on ANI where an editor has not had a chance to reply or is blocked and can't reply and/or is subjected to unnecessary name-calling or other uncivil behavior. Best Regards,   Bfpage |leave a message  13:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi B In my personal view the important thing is that Wikipedia editors can do what they can to get on while editing in accordance with their values and while building encyclopedic content. I'm a big believer in personal approach.

I really do not understand the full picture of what was going on around the AN/Is that you were involved with but there was certainly wrong involved which has no part of the effective processes here and my hope is that all relevant parties, including myself, will learn appropriate lessons from this.

We have a good, just but negative rule in NPA but not positive rule on encouraging reconciliation.

We have a rule on hounding and yet an editor can put in a situation in which s/he can be accused, criticised if they argue mitigating circumstances, cut from conversation while criticism continues and then have discussions closed before any opportunity.

For my part I will be interested to see anything that may develop in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#Real world legal situations Vs. AN/I and I think that I would be really interested to know about the comparisons.

I don't know how you feel about the content and presentation of the last AN/I but, for your part, one option you might take would be to make enquiries at WT:AN/I about adding belated comment so as to explain any of your perspectives at the end of any of the closed discussions or to raise any other issue of your choosing.

I also think that it might be enlightening if WP conducted a survey of editors on influences that have resulted in increases and decreases in editor motivation. I think that such a survey might have really interesting results. GregKaye 18:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't expect you to come 'for' or 'against' the two ANIs or decide what was right and what was wrong. But I probably feel just as strongly as you do and how you expressed the whole idea of having some kind of right to reply or maybe a slightly weirder term would be 'face your accusers'. Reconciliation! How wonderful that would be and how productive. I hope this isn't breaking the rules of my block, but I can generalize by saying those involved in discussions in the ANIs are excellent editors...they really are, much better than me. If we were to achieve reconciliation to combine my strengths at researching content with superlative references (in project medicine referencing requires the highest references possible, too many to list here.) with prose-editing skills of other editors, you would see the most amazing improvements to medical articles-it would make your head spin! Hopefully the restrictions place upon me by administrator Kevin Gorman is truly a move in the direction of reconciliation-I know it doesn't seem like it now, but I remain hopeful that as time passes and my own editing history and behavior are confirmed to be positive, productive, encouraging, kind, civil the walls may come down.

I will look at the link you have listed above about wikiproject law. Instead of asking for an addendum regarding the two ANIs in which I was involved, I have a different plan of action. One thing I will do is to confront those who clearly violated all sorts of policies on civility and assigning motives to my actions AND behavior. The descriptions of my behavior was not entirely accurate, but that really doesn't matter at this point. One thing that administrator Kevin Gorman did that others did not do (even you!) was actually to scrutinize my editing behavior. When there was a lack of referenced 'diffs', you know, the little numbers with the blue arrows coming out of the right hand corner, it did not occur to anyone to compare the accusations/interpretations with the sum total of my past and present behavior. How does one reference that? That is what Kevin Gorman did, he actually assessed my editing history and liked what he found. My consistent, positive building of the encyclopedia and the encouragement that I try to give to other editors was my best defense; along with me finally being able to have a venue to acknowledge the things that I did that were wrong. I liked the privacy of defining the things I did wrong. It would have been more difficult in an ANI...but the ANI is the right place to answer one's accusers-but email was my only option. Still, keep me on you 'ping' list. The 'right to reply' is a very important issue to me.

  Bfpage |leave a message  20:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Meant to ping you[edit]

about this.   Bfpage |leave a message  21:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Sturmabteilung name change discussion[edit]

The name change discussion was getting to be quite confusing as to who supported what, so I revamped the format and I'm asking all editors who already voted to return and recast their votes under the new format. [19] Thanks, BMK (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)