User talk:PBS/Archive 17
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Hi Phillip
Doing well here how have you been? Tirronan (talk)
Typo in AWB edit summaries
Hi Phil, there's a typo in your AWB edit summaries: "tempates" should be "templates". Graham87 14:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your message in my talk page
I replied there and thank you! --Lvhis (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
January 2014
BracketBot
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC) |
Refrences
You are making numerous AWB edits like this and this, which change the correct spelling of "References" to the incorrect "Refrences" - Please stop - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 13
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard Adelbert Lipsius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iena (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC) |
Please can you check references for
THanks so much Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.17.244 (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
In your Navigator, you have a slight misspelling. You have "sandboxs", the correct spelling is "sandboxes". I attempted to make the change myself (cause I know a message about spelling mistakes seems rude), but wasn't able to. Just letting you know. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 20
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lucy Walter, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Flushing and Gilbert Gerard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC) |
Thanks?
Well, thank you for your appreciation. Though I have been wondering if that was for what I said, or what I didn't say. :-) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 27
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC) |
Talkback
Message added 08:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Disambiguation link notification for February 3
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Temploux, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Namur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC) |
A kitten for you!
This wiki-kitten wants to thank you for your copyediting and other fixes. Such gnomish edits are always appreciated!
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
February 2014
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC) |
Battle of Berlin article
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
-YMB29 (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 16
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Houyoux, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Bruyère (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC) |
Bismarck
Hi. I answered your question at the ref desk, and have added his birthday as well in case you missed my addendum. μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide definitions until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Dicdef / village pump
PBS, firstly I acknowledge that you are disappointed that I brought Genocide definitions to multiafd today. I may have gone about it the wrong way, but I hope you will give me the benefit of the doubt when I say that it is a genuine (perhaps misguided) attempt to reach consensus on the questions of dicdef and copyright as they relate to such articles.
Anyway, I'm coming here to ask whether you would mind if i bring up the same question at village pump.
I would really like to achieve closure on this point - and the only way i know to do so is to find a process to reach a real consensus.
Oncenawhile (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Just left you a message at my talk page. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Definitions
Just a message to say thanks for resolving the situation at that article. I recognise my thanks likely means little or nothing given your negative view of me, but your intervention has saved a few of us from continuing our endless circular arguments, so thank you. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 26 February
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC) |
Disambiguation link notification for February 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- 1814 campaign in France (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Montereau, Montmirail, Vauchamps and Victor
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Battle of Berlin again
Just a note to let you know I mentioned you in a discussion on my talkpage as to the Battle of Berlin matter. Kierzek (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
What is your reasoning for ignoring WP:ASF?
- The text of Wikipedia articles should not assert opinions but should assert facts. When a statement is a fact (a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute) it should be asserted without prefixing it with "(Source) says that ...", and when a statement is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it should be attributed to the source that offered the opinion using inline-text attribution.[1]
Is that so hard to understand?
I did verify this on the NPOV noticeboard, so you can't claim that this is only my opinion.[2] -YMB29 (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
March 2014
Extended content
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC) |
Disambiguation link notification for March 6
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, 10.4.0.34 (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC) |
Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3
Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Hitler was known to be kind to children and dogs ...
Hi, PBS.
Re this edit: Hitler was known to be kind to children and dogs, and sometimes even banned users do exactly the right thing. I'm not saying you weren't within your rights to revert, but the rub is that now the title is a mismatch to the text and needs to be changed back to include the cedilla. I'll leave it with you for prompt action. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 17
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Dryden (1668–1701), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Congreve (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC) |
Reflinks
Please don't use the Reflinks tool on Google Books links, as you did here: the output is inaccurate at best. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Harry Burrard
I have reverted your recent edits as they created a load of redlinks. Perhaps you would like to try again. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Apologies - I shouldn't try to edit after an evening out! -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Whenever an IP (or any user for that matter) adds a large chunk of unedited text (no refs/wikilinks), then I get suspicious. The good news is that the deleted edits and this version are entirely different pieces, so it wasn't taken from a mirror. I also copypasted several phrases at random into Google to see if anything came up, and for any I used, the entry was the only result. So, perhaps surprisingly, the additions appear to be legit, unless it was someone copying something from a book source, which would be beyond my ability to find. Wizardman 02:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Proposal to move the Orphan tags to the talk page
Yes, I didn't knew. OccultZone (Talk) 12:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- I just saw, somebody had notified AWB community about this proposal. But nothing seems to have done. You got any idea, why? OccultZone (Talk) 12:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Eyre Coote (British Army officer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Mansion House, Charles Grey, Battle of Brooklyn, Bandon and Battle of Bergen
- Sir Harry Burrard, 1st Baronet of Lymington (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Arthur Wellesley and Hew Dalrymple
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- George Wilkes Unett (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Cambray
- William Douglas of Balgillo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to 74th Foot
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Re: WP:TITLE
I disagree with your assessment of consensus. Although there is no strictly defined numerical ratio, outside of RfAs and RfBs, anything over 2/3 is frequently considered to suffice to show consensus. In this case, there was actually 70.5% support for the change, which should be more than enough. bd2412 T 23:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#WP:BOLDTITLE and election articles
I have started a discussion that may interest you at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#WP:BOLDTITLE and election articles. Anomalocaris (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Question about underlinking
I know it certainly depends upon the size of the page, but still, if the page has 3-4 or more links, it cannot be said as 'underlinked' anymore? OccultZone (Talk) 10:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Slight change in the White Album move discussion
The proposed move of The Beatles (album) to The White Album has been altered slightly, to the simpler White Album. I'm letting you know in case you'd like to review your vote. Dralwik|Have a Chat 01:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Diacritics RFC
I am working on a diacritics RFC here. It's a rather elaborate proposal, so I thought I'd get some comments going public with it. You can put a response on the proposal's talk page. Taekwondo Panda (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have posted the RFC. Taekwondo Panda (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of Berlin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- title=The Red Army “Rape of Germany” was Invented by Goebbels |newspaper=[[Komsomolskaya Pravda]]}}([http://www.kp.ru/daily/26073/2979464/ original Russian]
- for Berlin: April& |nbsp;– May 1945]. Includes the Order of Battle for the Battle for Berlin (Le Tissier, T. ''The Battle of Berlin 1945'', Jonathan Cape, London, 1988.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Thread that you copied to WT:RM: is it an RfC?
Hello PBS. Regarding your copying of this thread. If you consider that the discussion is still in progress and want to get more comments, maybe you should remove the green box, which looks like a closure box? Perhaps you could add an RfC header, since it appears to be a discussion of "Should there be a minimum time between RM discussions? Specifically, a minimum time after a RM proposal failed to gain consensus before trying much the same thing again? " Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
June 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Military occupation of France may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- *[[Military Administration in Belgium and Northern France]])(1940–1944)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Kekoolani
Hello, you were involve a past similiar discussion Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 115#Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley, can you give an opinion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Kekoolani? I don't think it will violate Wikipedia:Canvassing since you fall under "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)." Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Orphan template
You were active in talk page discussion and so perhaps can assist at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_14#Template:Orphan. Andrew (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Notice from Technical 13
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Canvassing.... Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Common name
IMO, Wikipedia would better off following an established style guide like CMOS rather than made up principles like "common name" and "recognizabililty," and "accuracy." CMOS keeps it simple: It recommends following the names and spellings given in Merriam Webster (the M-W Collegiate, Geographic and Biographical dictionaries). The full version of this style is used in Britannica. In theory, it's CMOS is the standard for the whole publishing industry, even though "dumbed down" versions often get used in practice. Much too sexy (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Bosnian mujahideen - Shia involvement
Hello, I would like you to look into the edit war that occurs (again) in the Bosnian mujahideen page. Various people, registered or not, non-stop remove sourced and credible information on the Shia involvement on the Bosnian side in the war. Please, look into this matter and block the article plus block the registered users that constantly remove the information. Follow up with this [3]. Thank you for your time and work that you do on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.57.129 (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Please do not reformat other users' Talk page posts
If I had wanted to be a subsection of Born2cycle's post I would have put myself as a subsection Please do not reformat other users' Talk page contributions. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your recent edits on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. The thread is User:PBS reformatting Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Thank you. —Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Issy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint Germain. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica with a wikisource parameter
Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica with a wikisource parameter, 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. Reventtalk 17:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica with an article parameter
Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica with an article parameter, 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. Reventtalk 17:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
EB1911 categories
Sorry if my 'venue' for bringing it up was inappropriate... I didn't want to actually suggest deleting the code from the templates themselves because of the possibility of a later reversion to an article reactivating the deprecated parameter. These are only very recently empty, because I ran through the members and fixed them the other day. I've actually been working on the various categories like these as a 'group', at this point really just fixing the fact that most aren't marked as tracking categories or empytcats. In the process I've found some that had been deleted, but are now populated, and I assume that they were at some point in the past empty.
I'm actually not going to push on with it now, because it does work the way it currently is. I do think it would make a lot of sense to, eventually, break out parts of the code for the 'more functional' ones of these templates into a set of 'subroutine' templates for writing these things. There are quite a few that give very poor attribution (just boilerplate text) , or don't have the error tracking functionality, or don't use CS1 and so don't add COiNS, and it would be a lot easier to deal with them as a 'set' rather than trying to rewrite 100-odd templates individually. At the same time, some of the 'best' of these templates actually sort into a single error category, and use 'sorting names' for those categories to group the articles by the specific error. This seems to me to be a more sensible system, at least for the ones that don't have a massive backlog, because there's less to keep an eye on. Reventtalk 05:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Failure to follow accessibility guidelines. Thank you. Bgwhite (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Parker (jurist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Weston Underwood. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
July 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mount Victoria Tunnel may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- in 1976, the year of conversion two New Zealand Dollars were worth one New Zealand Pound (NZP) ((See [[New Zealand pound]])}}
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Malplaquet proclamation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- London |publisher= W. Shoberl |url=https://archive.org/details/percyhamiltonora03lenn |pages=[https://archive.org/stream/percyhamiltonora03lenn#page/178/mode/2up 178–179}}
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Wilhelm Ludwig Viktor Henckel von Donnersmarck
- added a link pointing to Battle of Lützen
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Correct title for "3rd (United Kingdom) Division"
Hello PBS, Thank you for your recent changes to the "3rd (United Kingdom) Division" page. Please can you undo one of your amendments, please? The correct unit title of the British Army's 3rd Division is "3rd (United Kingdom) Division" with the 'UK' bit in the middle, not at the end. Please see their official website for confirmation: www.army.mod.uk/3rdUKDivision . Many thanks, ArmyPost (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
August 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Combined arms may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- necessary. The [Battle of Waterloo#The French cavalry attack|great Fremch cavalry charge]] commanded by [[Marshal Ney]] during the battle failed to break Wellington's squares of infantry
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pironchamps may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- is located in Pironchamps |publisher=Farciennese Municipal Website|accessdate=August 2014}}}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Ivan |last=Sache |date=24 November 2007 |url=http://www.crwflags.com/
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Siege of Kolberg (1807) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
|---|
|
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John Kirkwood may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- * [[John A. Kirkwood]] (1851–1930, an American soldier and Medal of Honor recipient
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Siege of Cuddalore may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- ains a German account of the siege)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to English longbow may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- use were the short [[Bodkin point|bodkin]] (Jessop M10) and a small barbed arrow (Jessop M4).{[sfn|Wadge|2007|pp=184–185}}
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Abdication of Napoleon, 1815 may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- * {{source-attribution|{{Citation |last=Siborne |first=William |year=1848 |title=The Waterloo Campaign, 1815 |edi
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bombing of Dresden in World War II may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- Bombing the European Axis Powers. A Historical Digest of the Combined Bomber Offensive 1939–1945] |location=Alabama |publisher=Air University Press |ref=harv}}
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1814 campaign in France may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- of her colonies she [[Tobago]], [[Santa Lucia]] and [[Mauritius]]. The treaty was quite lenient (compared to the treaty which was imposed oh her the following year [[Treaty of Paris (1815)]]. As
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Charles Stedman
- added links pointing to Jacobite and William Howe
- Combined arms
- added a link pointing to Mont-Saint-Jean
- William Stewart (1774–1827)
- added a link pointing to Gold Cross
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Re Possible Copyviolation? at Blockade of Germany
I inserted the ref citing the UK archives some time ago to support the figure of 763,000 deaths in the Blockade. However, I must point out that I did not add other material from the the UK archives. My other edits at that article were from other sources that are properly referenced.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Brigandage
- added a link pointing to Reavers
- Court dwarf
- added a link pointing to John Jarvis
- Onoz, Namur
- added a link pointing to Namur
- Percy Drummond
- added a link pointing to Flushing
- William Millar (British Army officer)
- added a link pointing to Woolwich Arsenal
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Judgepedia
Thanks for being proactive! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Frimley Park
- added a link pointing to C.
- Waterloo Campaign
- added a link pointing to Leuze
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abdication of Napoleon, 1815, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rochefort, Louis VIII and Frederick Lewis Maitland. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 27 August
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Bombing of Dresden in World War II page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Re: coordinates and roads
I saw your query about start and end coordinates for roads. You might be interested in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/Linear#Marking. Imzadi 1979 → 20:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I also eavesdropped on that dialogue and have a suggestion that I'm more comfortable offering here. I assume you must have some kind of diagram showing the location and path of such a tunnel system, or you wouldn't know where the start and end points are. Obviously such a diagram would be far more useful to the reader than two sets of coords, but you can't copy it for copyright reasons. However, there's no reason you can't create your own diagram showing the same information, upload it to Commons, and include it in the article citing your source as a ref. If you don't have the skills and a software tool to do that, you can enlist the help of someone who does. I could suggest someone who has made a map for me, although I obviously can't guarantee he would agree. I don't know whether the above-referenced solution would be better, since I don't understand it. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
September 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Robert de Beaufeu may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- (c.1188) of Gerald of Wales read by the author at a festival at Oxford.{{sfn|Thompson|1885|p=36}}{[efn|His authorship of this piece depends on Gerald of Wales's self-serving story reporting the
- reporting the praise that Robert gave to Gerald's ''Topographia Hiberniae''.{{sfn|Rigg|2004}} }}
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to House of Arenberg may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- {efn|In French and the official British translation of the [[Final Act of the Congress of Vienna]] (1815 the spelling used is '''Duc d'Aremberg''' and '''Duke of Aremberg''' (see [[s:Final Act of the
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Naming conventions
Please read what I wrote. Moving this article would needlessly take the article away from our established naming convention, by which the vast majority of lighthouses are entitled "Light" Just look at any list of US lighthouse articles; virtually all are named "Light". Nyttend (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- I am not a member of the lighthouses project; you would do well to ask them if they have a specific written page of this sort. The point still stands: the convention obviously exists, even if not written down, and it would be harmful to take this page away from it intentionally. Nyttend (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Ludwig von Wallmoden-Gimborn
- added a link pointing to Order of Leopold
- William I of Württemberg
- added a link pointing to Strasburg
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Please don't
Edits like this break the section links in watchlists and page histories, and as such are unhelpful to other editors. DuncanHill (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree with your reply on my talk page - and note that you obviously don't care about keeping conversations in one place, if you did you would have replied here. Anyway, your edit did make it harder for editors other than you. And, of course, it is generally regarded as very bad form to reformat other editors' talk page comment without both very good reason and an explanation of that reason made at the time (for example in both the edit summary and in a note to the other editor). Your use of edit summaries is extremely poor, and I would ask you to make a little more effort with them.
- Also, you do not own the article - please try to remember that. When editors try to improve it by asking for better referencing you should not attack them for it!
- You can regard this as a warning about your "ownership" attitude to other editors.
- I don't want to resurrect all the old ANI threads about your own behaviour and that of the editor whose wording you are apparently so intent on keeping but I will if you continue to behave as you have been doing. DuncanHill (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- I did not make any demands about where you replied to a usertalk post, please do not repeat your false claim that I did. What I did do was point out an apparent contradiction between what you said and what you did. DuncanHill (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- If I had meant that I did not want you to reply on my talk page then I would have said so. I didn't say so, but did point out the apparent contradiction between your actions combining threads on the article talk page and your actions in choosing to split usertalk conversations between two pages. What I did mean, and say, was that I disagreed with your reply. DuncanHill (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Isaac Ambrose, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DNB. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
October 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to British Armed Forces may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- the oldest service within the British Armed Forces, the [[Royal Navy]] consists of five arms:<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/ |title=Royal Navey |publisher=royalnavy.mod.uk |
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Undue Revert?
Would it be ok if I undid the revert to Syrian Civil War that the now topic banned editor did? Or can you? Legacypac (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Islamic State topic ban
I may not be entirely clear but it seems that you topic banned me for three months for saying I planned on violating a moratorium which doesn't exist by hold a Request for Comment and that to do so is "disruptive". Is this correct? Would you like to revisit this ban, because I'm rather bewildered. GraniteSand (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Banning moves under sanctions
Regarding WP:GS/SCW. Though this is a community sanction, the wording is parallel to some Arbcom discretionary sanctions. See some examples of banning moves at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Log of article-level discretionary sanctions. It is accepted that admins can restrict articles and not just specific editors. Notice that four articles were move protected by User:Callanecc. In this AE request an admin banned the initiation of move proposals for Senkaku Islands for one year. Either of these is something you might consider. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Y-Gerät
The article Y-Gerät has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- This article is, for all practical purposes, a duplicate of the sub-section Y-Gerät in Battle of the Beams. This article adds no information that is not already contained in that article. A redirect to the above section could be left here.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
RFC
I'm sorry that you are confused. I thought in the second sentence where it says, "The RFC is here:Talk:2014_Iranian-led_intervention_in_Iraq#RFC:_Military_intervention_against_ISIS_2014_in_Iraq" that one might think that the RFC is located Talk:2014_Iranian-led_intervention_in_Iraq#RFC:_Military_intervention_against_ISIS_2014_in_Iraq.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
thanks
Thanks for taking care of the open ANI. Just to clarify, I will certainly follow the proper RM sequence like I have always done. The only page moves I have made have been to revert single-editor page moves that have violated the agreement of a consensus discussion. I am also committed not to refer to other editors as "hissy-fit, crying, anti-American" [sic] even when another editor persistently and loudly makes the same declamation about me ad infinitum. If you have time in the future, we would always welcome another editor at Iranian-led intervention in Iraq and the associated talk page. Best - DocumentError (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Battle of Berlin citations edits
Sorry about that, I thought that harv did the same as |ref={{harvid|author|year}}Keith-264 (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Talk:2014 American-led intervention in Iraq#Requested move
I was wondering on the possibility of adding an edit on this page as I did on: Talk:Omar Ahmad (American politician):
- On a different topic the main motivation for change relates to national security and the use of terminologies that are less likely to be conducive for attack.
- Here's something that I previously wrote at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#United States R US
- I'm proposing the above as preferred terms of reference as a friend from the UK and based on the following:
- Enemies of the United States typically refer to the nation as America.
- The United States only constitutes one of many countries in the Americas and only about one third of the total population.
- Amerigo Vespucci was and explorer of South America and the West Indies.
- Hawaii is arguably better defined as constituting a part of the United States rather than as representing a part of America.
- The primary reference to the country and is the United States. This is fairly well represented through many of the categories and articles connected to Category:Government in the United States and I would personally propose that this reference may be beneficially applied in other topics as per support from WP:UCRN.
- The term "United States" conveys a message of unity in specific ownership of a single nation while 50 countries across two continents share the roots of "American" terminologies.
- Again, enemies of the United States, that I have heard, tend to fixate on the name America and I think that it would be a step towards peace to withdraw politics from use of this terminology. America is a comparatively ambiguous terminology that may be perceived to have been monopolised by the United States. Enemies of America also tend to indiscriminately select targets from amongst the general population of the American people. Amongst other things, this is something that directly contravenes Islamic law. Islamic terrorists act hypocritically in targeting civilians (innocents is a term used). A move to a consistent use of titles with regard to U.S. political and military topics would, I hope, serve to help highlight that hypocrisy. I am no expert on these things but sources such as http://lettertobaghdadi.com/ may be helpful.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
AFD
Hi PBS - I'm not sure about this revert. Did you want me to revert the closure entirely (which I don't mind doing if I need to)? The result was redirect. I agree there wasn't consensus for that but it was done boldly so that was the result nonetheless. The close (in this case) reflected the result rather than defining it. If your opinion is still "outstanding" then it shouldn't have been boldly redirected (that should be reverted) and it shouldn't have been closed (that should be reverted too). Thoughts? St★lwart111 23:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hi mate, I'm not sure that clarifies it much. It sounds like you disagree with the result. The result wasn't "keep" because the article wasn't kept, it was redirected. But I didn't redirect it. That was a functional close which I changed later to reflect the result. The "result" was done boldly (which left not much more to discuss) and the nomination itself was withdrawn. It sounds like the result should be "merge" which (as you rightly point out) can be done post-redirect but probably should be done using merge templates. I only closed it because it had been boldly redirected. Reverting the redirect, re-listing it and allowing a merge closure later seems like policy wonkery. But I'm happy to take your advice. St★lwart111 06:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's not, by itself, a result. I still don't understand if you disagree with the result or not (which, again, wasn't my result) but reverting from a correction back to the original mistake seems a bit pointless given you seem to think neither possible result applies. Anyway, feel free to change it to whatever you want. I was just going through the log and closing stuff that others should have closed and wanted to understand your revert. Happy to admit it when I don't. St★lwart111 10:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edward Sexby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Preston. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
RfC
A RfC in which you may be interested has opened here. DocumentError (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Closed discussion on ISIL
With this edit you closed the conversation, however you did not give a reason and did not sign it. I've been threatened with topic ban by Legacypac on my talk page based on this conversation that I didn't participate in and couldn't read. I expanded the template. I suggest that you sign the closing and give a reason or remove it. I also made a comment below the box agreeing that there should be a RM moratorium. Thx. ~Technophant (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- You reverted the expand but failed to either sign or give a reason for the close. I spent almost 15 minutes trying to figure out who closed the discussion and I'm left to my own devices to figure out why. Please at least sign the collapse box.~Technophant (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Technophant, if a certain editor hasn't threatened you with a topic ban you haven't been on WP very long. That's just part of the welcome basket when you edit these topics. When you check-in to the Hilton Maui you get a can of macedamia nuts, when you check-in to the WP IS topic area you get a threat of a topic ban from a certain editor. I've had four myself; I wouldn't sweat it. Come back when he's denounced you as "Anti-American." DocumentError (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have a question about WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. The instructions there do not say that the notification must be done by an admin. Legacypac's first contact with me (discussed on my talk page) has been hostile, ignoring AGF and suggesting battleground attitude. He has plenty of notices on his talk page already but not this notification. Could you please notify him? Also I closed the RM moratorium discussion and put up a warning. I hope my work is up to snuff and that I didn't overstep my authority. ~Technophant (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussion: Operation Inherent Resolve
A discussion in which you may be interested [opened here]. - SantiLak (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Clarification
I want to understand the reason behind your taking issues with "strong ties to the United Kingdom", and desire for an extremely tight definition as such. Please understand that I am not questioning your good faith, only the utility of arguing over such semantics. This terminology is used across the encyclopaedia for different purposes, I quite simply don't understand how you cannot understand what is meant by it. RGloucester — ☎ 21:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Disruptive editing on ISIL
Gregkaye (talk · contribs · logs) has repeatedly reverted or reinserted edits that violate NPOV and consensus. I notified of him of the sanctions, warned him on the talk page the he should not continue to revert, warned him level 3 for disruptive, then level 4 when he did it again. He seems not to get the wp:point. I suggest a block or ban to prevent further disruption.~Technophant (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I took this to ANI.~Technophant (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Appreciate the help
I just wanted to say thanks and that I appreciate the help when it came to reverting a premature archiving. I have now removed it from the archive and added a message about the archiving in the section. Again I appreciate the information and now I will know what to do if something gets archived prematurely again. - SantiLak (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
This article could possibly do with some attention. We could move content from English Army about England's military before the Restoration Army was formed? Then have English Army about solely the standing force established after 1660? Before the 16th century, there wasn't a distinction between the naval and land forces, so maybe it makes more sense to cover them both on one article? Alternatively, we could delete it. Thoughts? Rob984 (talk) 11:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
My topic ban appeal has been posted
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GraniteSand (talk) 05:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Confusion over Syrian Civil Wars sanctions alert
Could you please take a look at WP:AN#Request for clarification on Syrian Civil War and ISIL sanctions - warning policy. What seems to have happened here is that Template:SCW&ISIL sanctions and Template:SCW&ISIL enforcement have not been updated to make it possible for any editor, as opposed to only administrators, to add what is basically a sanction alert to another editor's talk page. I certainly thought that this had been done and had discussed it with a couple of Admins a while ago. I can't see any reason for this to be an Admin only notice with a different process from general sanctions. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- This is the discussion Callanecc, Bbb23 and I had about this earlier on Callaneccs talk page. Dougweller (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- And I think I've sorted it. We agreed that as with ArbCom alerts any editor can place this notification, but didn't revise the actual notification template page. I've done that now. Sorry to bother you about this although the AN discussion may carry on. Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
ISIL talk page length
I am guessing that I may be considered to be the person with most motive to keep open the lengthy thread (with lengthy title): Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality” (See related discussion at #Logical Order in Lead). Just to confirm, if page size becomes a particular problem, I am happy for it to be archived and can propose such if notified of this being a good option. I have recently made some tinkering additions to add to a length that spans about fifth to a quarter of the entire page length. also pinging Corriebertus. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- If I can chip in, I think that discussion should remain on the Talk page until the dispute over "jihadist" is settled, however long it is. It is the most important discussion the Talk page has seen in a long time, the AN/I that Gregkaye was taken to recently (which is still not over) centres on it, and the dispute, now being carried on under other headings, is still very much alive on the Talk page. If it has to be archived, it must be properly linked first to the current related sections on the Talk page. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Felino123
At Technophant's suggestion I have just made a report on Felino123 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. P123ct1 also advised to refer to you and when I mentioned what had happened advised me to tread carefully. I'd appreciate any advice. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 11:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--82.136.210.153 (talk) 11:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Even handed approach and colapsing
@PBS: I appreciate your recent changing of the heading titles regarding the history of apparent edit warring by Felino123. To get this in context my writing up of this history has been supported by P123ct1 as demonstrated at User talk:Gregkaye#Edit warning. Firstly I've got to say that I am delighted about aspects of the result of this thread. Following Felino123's response I hope to have begun a new stage in relationship with Felino123 with good signs of positive communication at User talk:Felino123#Kudos to you. An issue that I have raised here relates to the thread Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#The word "jihad", criticism and disruption.
This thread begins with the very strongly worded content as contained here.
|
|---|
|
The criticism of IS should be on the criticism section. Is that difficult to understand? Me and most users (with one exception) have made it clear. So the "Muslims have criticized ISIL’s actions, authority and theological interpretations." has no place on the Lead. By Muslims? Ok, which Muslims? Islam and Muslims are not a monolithic bloc. Some agree with IS, many don't. IS has also been criticized by Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists, etc. Do we state it on the Lead, too? Criticism of IS by Muslims is clearly stated on the criticism section, along with all other criticisms, and where ALL criticism should be (the section exists for that!) I have removed it from the Lead. Let's keep this article clean and arranged. The Lead is not for stating any criticism from any source. And about the usage of the word "jihad", there is a lot of debate between Muslims -and non-Muslims- and Muslim clerics and scholars about the meaning of this word. So that what IS is doing "is not jihad" is a subjective personal opinion and not a fact. Most sources use this word to describe IS' actions, and it's the word IS itself uses, along with its supporters and other Muslims. There have already been long and strong discussions about the usage of this word on this article, and the conclusion was that the usage of this word on this article is not incorect at all. So this word should not be removed, as a user is doing again and again, and there shouldn't be small notes along with this word on the Lead reading that some argue IS is not a jihadi group. Disruption can't go on. This user has been warned several times, and he keeps disrupting the article. I think something should be done. This is an encyclopedic article, not propaganda or an opinion piece. Wikipedia is not a platform for expressing personal opinions. This article should be objective, clean and arranged. |
The indication, which has been on display to readers for over a week now, contains text such as "Me and most users (with one exception) have made it clear." This is basically a statement to say, despite the fact that my argument related to the desire for qualification to be given to one word, that all editors other than me wanted to have criticism removed from the lead. This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and this would have become increasingly apparent to Felino123 as x/he continually reverted edits of a variety of editors who attempted to return criticism into the lead. I have requested Felino123 to edit this text but to this point this has not happened. In the context of content such as this having been on display for this period of time I find it inappropriate for the edit links and commentary to be left collapsed. The claim is made that I am the one person objecting to criticism in the lead and clear evidence of a variety of editors making attempts to add critical content to the lead has been hidden from sight. In line with WP:TPYES I am happy for relevant content to be altered but object to the collapse of the content. I would appreciate advice on ways forward on this.
The content that I presented reads:
- Revision as of 22:49, 19 October 2014 Felino123 enacts wholesale removal of the second paragraph of the lead complete with its 7 footnotes
- Revision as of 12:10, 20 October 2014 Jason from nyc adds: "Muslims have criticized ISIL’s actions, authority, and theological interpretations." stating, "The lead should summarize "prominent controversies" per WP:LEAD"
- Revision as of 06:47, 21 October 2014 Gregkaye adds "[b]" - efn|Islamic criticism of ISIL has included comment by Sunni scholars that sacrifices of ISIL are "not Jihad at all."< ref name=OpenLetToAlBagh / >.
- Revision as of 12:10, 21 October 2014 Felino123 reverts edits of Jason from nyc and Gregkaye
- Revision as of 16:48, 21 October 2014 Jack Pepa adds: "More than 120 Islamic scholars have indicated ISIS to be Khawarij" to beginning of last para of lead and provides two citations.
- Revision as of 01:07, 22 October 2014 P123ct1 adds: "[b]" - efn|Islamic criticism of ISIL has included comment by Sunni scholars that sacrifices of ISIL are "not Jihad at all."< ref name=OpenLetToAlBagh / >.
- Revision as of 09:55, 24 October 2014 Felino123 reverts edits of Jack Pepa and P123ct1
- Revision as of 08:34, 25 October 2014 P123ct1 adds: "Muslims have criticized ISIL’s actions, authority and theological interpretations." to last para of lead
- Revision as of 08:45, 25 October 2014 P123ct1 adds: "[b]" - efn|Islamic criticism of ISIL has included comment by Sunni scholars that sacrifices of ISIL are "not Jihad at all."< ref name=OpenLetToAlBagh / > and states: "Restored efn footnote (please see Talk page for reasons)".
- Revision as of 15:03, 25 October 2014 Comitus qualifies to: "Some Muslims ..."
- Revision as of 23:44, 25 October 2014 Thegreatmuka amends qualification to: "Many Muslims ..." and states: "Changed "some" to "many" in order to avoid interpretation that "most Muslims do not criticize.""
- Revision as of 13:50, 26 October 2014 Felino123 reverts P123ct1 and removes reference to "Muslims" from lead. ALSO ADDS: a three times cited reference to Israel in opposition. This is despite the fact that Israel's only actual involvement has been the provision of information and that the many of entries of nations that have actual physical involvement are uncited and, in total, there are more participants mentioned than there are citation refs added.
- Revision as of 13:50, 26 October 2014 Felino123 reverted P123ct1 and removed reference to Muslims from lead
- Revision as of 16:25, 26 October 2014 Gregkaye edits and states in notes: "is a Sunni, extremist, unrecognized state and self-proclaimed jihadist caliphate in Iraq and Syria in the Middle East as per talk page" THIS WAS A NEW SUGGESTION OF EDIT
- Revision as of 08:54, 27 October 2014 Felino123 reverts Gregkaye and, for the first time, states "Reverting a disruption"
Compare and contrast!
Please also pay attention to the Israel in opposition issue
Please feel free to refactor any of that last content above and please advise
Thank-you. Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I have just sent this to the arbitration commitee
Misrepresentation, manipulation of situations to push editing agendas and accusations of defamation
My situation comes in the context of my pushing for edits in the article "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" involving a wish to provide some kind of qualifying statement when Wikipedia uses its voice to declare the group to be jihadist. A very large section of Islam has a view of the Islamic defensive principle of jihad that is very different from the view of jihad held amongst supporters of ISIL.
In the context of this dispute with limited scope, editor Felino123 started the strongly worded thread The word "jihad", criticism and disruption which presented me as being the only editor supporting having criticism of ISIL which both misrepresented me and a commonly supported editing position.
This thread begins with the very strongly worded content as contained here.
|
|---|
|
The criticism of IS should be on the criticism section. Is that difficult to understand? Me and most users (with one exception) have made it clear. So the "Muslims have criticized ISIL’s actions, authority and theological interpretations." has no place on the Lead. By Muslims? Ok, which Muslims? Islam and Muslims are not a monolithic bloc. Some agree with IS, many don't. IS has also been criticized by Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists, etc. Do we state it on the Lead, too? Criticism of IS by Muslims is clearly stated on the criticism section, along with all other criticisms, and where ALL criticism should be (the section exists for that!) I have removed it from the Lead. Let's keep this article clean and arranged. The Lead is not for stating any criticism from any source. And about the usage of the word "jihad", there is a lot of debate between Muslims -and non-Muslims- and Muslim clerics and scholars about the meaning of this word. So that what IS is doing "is not jihad" is a subjective personal opinion and not a fact. Most sources use this word to describe IS' actions, and it's the word IS itself uses, along with its supporters and other Muslims. There have already been long and strong discussions about the usage of this word on this article, and the conclusion was that the usage of this word on this article is not incorect at all. So this word should not be removed, as a user is doing again and again, and there shouldn't be small notes along with this word on the Lead reading that some argue IS is not a jihadi group. Disruption can't go on. This user has been warned several times, and he keeps disrupting the article. I think something should be done. This is an encyclopedic article, not propaganda or an opinion piece. Wikipedia is not a platform for expressing personal opinions. This article should be objective, clean and arranged. |
The indication, which has been on display to readers for over a week now, contains text such as "Me and most users (with one exception) have made it clear." This is basically a statement to say, despite the fact that my argument related to the desire for qualification to be given to one word, that all editors other than me wanted to have criticism removed from the lead. This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and this would have become increasingly apparent to Felino123 as x/he continually reverted edits of a variety of editors who attempted to return criticism into the lead. I have requested Felino123 to edit this text but to this point this has not happened. In the context of content such as this having been on display for this period of time I find it inappropriate for the edit links and commentary to be left collapsed. The claim is made that I am the one person objecting to criticism in the lead and clear evidence of a variety of editors making attempts to add critical content to the lead has been hidden from sight. In line with WP:TPYES I am happy for relevant content to be altered but object to the collapse of the content. I would appreciate advice on ways forward on this.
The content that I presented reads:
- Revision as of 22:49, 19 October 2014 Felino123 enacts wholesale removal of the second paragraph of the lead complete with its 7 footnotes
- Revision as of 12:10, 20 October 2014 Jason from nyc adds: "Muslims have criticized ISIL’s actions, authority, and theological interpretations." stating, "The lead should summarize "prominent controversies" per WP:LEAD"
- Revision as of 06:47, 21 October 2014 Gregkaye adds "[b]" - efn|Islamic criticism of ISIL has included comment by Sunni scholars that sacrifices of ISIL are "not Jihad at all."< ref name=OpenLetToAlBagh / >.
- Revision as of 12:10, 21 October 2014 Felino123 reverts edits of Jason from nyc and Gregkaye
- Revision as of 16:48, 21 October 2014 Jack Pepa adds: "More than 120 Islamic scholars have indicated ISIS to be Khawarij" to beginning of last para of lead and provides two citations.
- Revision as of 01:07, 22 October 2014 P123ct1 adds: "[b]" - efn|Islamic criticism of ISIL has included comment by Sunni scholars that sacrifices of ISIL are "not Jihad at all."< ref name=OpenLetToAlBagh / >.
- Revision as of 09:55, 24 October 2014 Felino123 reverts edits of Jack Pepa and P123ct1
- Revision as of 08:34, 25 October 2014 P123ct1 adds: "Muslims have criticized ISIL’s actions, authority and theological interpretations." to last para of lead
- Revision as of 08:45, 25 October 2014 P123ct1 adds: "[b]" - efn|Islamic criticism of ISIL has included comment by Sunni scholars that sacrifices of ISIL are "not Jihad at all."< ref name=OpenLetToAlBagh / > and states: "Restored efn footnote (please see Talk page for reasons)".
- Revision as of 15:03, 25 October 2014 Comitus qualifies to: "Some Muslims ..."
- Revision as of 23:44, 25 October 2014 Thegreatmuka amends qualification to: "Many Muslims ..." and states: "Changed "some" to "many" in order to avoid interpretation that "most Muslims do not criticize.""
- Revision as of 13:50, 26 October 2014 Felino123 reverts P123ct1 and removes reference to "Muslims" from lead. ALSO ADDS: a three times cited reference to Israel in opposition. This is despite the fact that Israel's only actual involvement has been the provision of information and that the many of entries of nations that have actual physical involvement are uncited and, in total, there are more participants mentioned than there are citation refs added.
- Revision as of 13:50, 26 October 2014 Felino123 reverted P123ct1 and removed reference to Muslims from lead
- Revision as of 16:25, 26 October 2014 Gregkaye edits and states in notes: "is a Sunni, extremist, unrecognized state and self-proclaimed jihadist caliphate in Iraq and Syria in the Middle East as per talk page" THIS WAS A NEW SUGGESTION OF EDIT
- Revision as of 08:54, 27 October 2014 Felino123 reverts Gregkaye and, for the first time, states "Reverting a disruption"
Compare and contrast!
Please also pay attention to the Israel in opposition issue
The text is found at Reducing Islamic criticism and highlighting the involvement of Israel which contains the above content and initial responses in a box that PBS I think unjustly collapsed.
In conversation another editor strongly agrees with me about this injustice and this is found in the third paragraph and onwards at User talk:Gregkaye#AN.2FI and next steps.
Some of the responses from Felino123 left me feeling quite encouraged that there might be a person here that I could develop a reasonable relationship with and I initiated a dialogue intitled Kudos to you. In the second paragraph of this dialogue I stated a position of wanting to do something about the initial, '"jihad", criticism and disruption' content but have had no reply.
At the same time this editor has been pushing for the inclusion of Israel on the ISIL opponents list even though Israel does not fit the criteria and has made this addition with the provision of three citations which served to make the inclusion of Israel stand out from the crowd. I ask questions and display legitimate content. For a wide variety of reasons I have pulled away from a POV that I still feel is important but have kept this to the side.
This user habitually responds with comments such as, " And Gregkaye, please don't defame me, I am not the one pushing my POV aggressively." The words defame and defaming appear five times now in the article in response to taking up a 1RR case against the user, following my presentation of the user's edit history and after challenging the Israel entry. Again my approach has been to present content and ask questions and I am met with rhetoric and accusation.
I do not think it fair that a user will not just stick with the arguments but will habitually attack editors.
If intervention is appropriate it would be greatly appreciated.
Thank-you
Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Talk page discussion – ISIS
Insertion of late comments into earlier parts of threads on the Talk page is getting out of hand. There has been a batch of them today. It makes discussion hard to follow and is not fair on readers coming to the page to read latest comments, who will mostly likely miss them. I don't know if you can do anything about this as an admin. As you know I have mentioned this several times in discussion about the Talk page length. I have left a note on the Talk page about it but I expect it will be ignored. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should have thought of that. This (1) is one, at the beginning of the thread. Here are some diffs of other examples: 2" "3. I make no further comment! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Text is now being altered mid-conversation, making nonsense of later comment here. The chaos on the Talk page grows apace! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- I came here to see if any comment had been made to the collapsing threads above and after I had made corrective edits to the last mentioned talk page thread. As mentioned I have felt misrepresented and I felt that the collapse of my reply to the situation was wrong. With everything that was going on I had not initially even been aware of the "Should we add this line to the lead" thread until P123ct1 kindly pinged me. On regular occasion when I have raised straightforward issues of behaviour to Felino123 or have asked questions I have been accused of defaming him/her and have stayed clear. I appreciate that these are late edits. I also did some late multiple edits to the jihad related threads but pinged all relevant parties simultaneously so as to give notification of amendment. (My pinging here is due to a regular habit of not talking behind backs). Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think Felino123 is unaware of the connotations of the word "defame", as I don't think English is his first language. He does use it a lot in connection with Gregkaye. I nearly posted him a message about WP:LIBEL as a kind of friendly warning, but didn't think it was my place to. I am not too happy about the collapsible thread either, PBS. I know we cannot have open edit-warring on the Talk page, but I was a bit uncomfortable with it for perhaps obvious reasons. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- I came here to see if any comment had been made to the collapsing threads above and after I had made corrective edits to the last mentioned talk page thread. As mentioned I have felt misrepresented and I felt that the collapse of my reply to the situation was wrong. With everything that was going on I had not initially even been aware of the "Should we add this line to the lead" thread until P123ct1 kindly pinged me. On regular occasion when I have raised straightforward issues of behaviour to Felino123 or have asked questions I have been accused of defaming him/her and have stayed clear. I appreciate that these are late edits. I also did some late multiple edits to the jihad related threads but pinged all relevant parties simultaneously so as to give notification of amendment. (My pinging here is due to a regular habit of not talking behind backs). Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Text is now being altered mid-conversation, making nonsense of later comment here. The chaos on the Talk page grows apace! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Normally I reply on the talk pages of the person who has contacted me. But in this case I will reply here as more than one editors is involved.
- @P123ct1 I think that (1) is a mistake, and I personally would not do it. But it will not be confusing to other editors. I think (2) and (3) are acceptable. But this is an example why it is better to archive sections more quickly, as such comments are likely to be missed by most editors (and will delay the archiving of the thread for even longer).
- @Gregkaye changing a post once a comment has been made is a no-no and this is explained in WP:REDACTED (part of WP:TALK). So P123ct1 has a right to feel aggrieved over "mid-conversation" changes. Please revisit that edit. Put back the original wording and then strike it through as described in WP:REDACTED and then add a comment in the correct chronological position in the thread stating that you have made a change to the wording. If that seems like too much effort then just revert the edit back to the original wording.
-- PBS (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- There is no need to redact due to agreement at User talk:P123ct1. I hope this meets with your satisfaction. In the whole listing there was a minimal strongly worded content. Given the context I only see a marginal issue in the first line. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Is this something collapsible or actionable?
This came hours after the an in page proposal was added to the jihadist debate and after it has been positively and rationally debated at: #To [b] or not to be - adding qualification to Wikipedia's endorsement of ISIL as jihadist. Debate has mainly been between me and Jason from nyc, P123ct1 initiated a move to try to establish consensus. I clarified my proposal and, in short order, Technophant issued an alternate and dismissively worded proposal. I regard this to be bad faith and disruptive while showing no (add: lacking) willingness to let things run their course. (Please consider consider the option to refactor this post or leave it for me to do so. I would naturally ping the people mentioned but don't want to do that on your user page without permission. At your discretion, the pings just need colons and, colons or not, this bracketed text is superfluous. Otherwise it can be left as it is). Thanks Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- @PBS: I have withdrawn comment re bad faith and showing no willingness to let things run their course by Technophant and with counsel from P123ct1 , and am back to trying to assume good faith. There is plenty more that I would like to say regarding frustrations at the situation but it is what it is. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Getting closure on RFC/U
User:P123ct1 and myself started WP:Requests for comment/Worldedixor on 12 September. I'm not sure if you've looked at it, but it gives a detailed description of the user's problem behavior and suggested remediations. Instead of taking the opportunity to come to an informal resolution, the user filled the project and talk page with personal attacks and other debris. I started a thread Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Worldedixor#I'm concerned that this RFC/U is getting off track and there was a broad consensus from multiple editors and admins to put forth a topic ban. However, Wolrdedixor stopped editing for a while and nobody took any action. Now that "WE" is back, and continuing his problematic behavior, I'm requesting that you evaluate this and take this to the noticeboard for a binding decision.~Technophant (talk) 04:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
@Technophant and Worldedixor I think it would help if you reread Wikipedia:Etiquette. I have now read the WP:Requests for comment/Worldedixor in detail. I had started previously but given up because the "Article talk page abuses" were not arranged as diffs and were difficult to follow. While it is clear that Worldedixor has made some inappropriate postings and at times Worldedixor's tone is less than friendly, I do not think that there was anything there that needed an RfC/U. I would agree that now there has been a RfC/U Worldedixor would do well to consider the "Desired outcome" as there is nothing there that with certain reasonable qualifications any editor would not agree to do.
There is a section in the Terrorism article called "Pejorative use", in it is a long quote that starts "On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term." If one rewrites this quote substituting the word "disruption" for "terrorism" one gets:
- On one point, at least, everyone agrees: disruption on Wikipedia is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to [snip] those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore.
You have to look at yourselves and your motives. Try to take a step back and look at the page as if you were an actor in one of Berthold Brecht's plays (see Brecht-Acting-Techniques). Would the actions of the disruptive editor be seen as such by a third party? Are you labelling their forthright behaviour disruptive, because it is more disruptive than your own behaviour (or that of others with whom you agree), or because it allows you an approach to have them silenced?
The simplest way to help you see the situation as an outsider would is to look at their edits and see if they have broken specific editing rules such as the 1RR or 3RR. On talk pages don't look for vague breaches of guidelines, but specific sentences that breach specific guidelines, as described in guidelines such as WP:TALK, WP:DISRUPTION or WP:COURTESY. If so then raise it on their talk pages and if that fails to resolve the issue then by all means raise it with me or take it to AN/I. But realise that administrative action can boomerang:
@Technophant One point that concerned me is on the talk page of the RfC/U where it was mentioned that off Wikipedia discussions had taken place. Please see the guidance about this: Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building pitfalls and errors.
-- PBS (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi PBS. Thank you. I am too busy to contribute to Wikipedia let alone spend valuable time pointing out the many instances of Technophant's conduct that is inconsistent with policy. Time will tell all, and so will other editors. However, you seem to have a good handle of what he has been up to. As a courteous gesture to you personally, I will make a quick minor edit to the article, and go back to my enjoyable life. Worldedixor (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- PBS, you must have read the comments from the admins on the Talk page in the RfC/U. Since then some of the diffs seem to have gone awry. I would point out again that for over a month I was harassed and attacked almost daily on the ISIS Talk page by this editor, despite my many attempts at reconciliation. The disruption on the Talk page was very noticeable, as a cursory glance through it will show. I steadfastly resisted taking the editor to AN/I, but now think I should have done. Dougweller was the admin on the page at the time if you ever need more background. .
- The "off-Wikipedia discussions" you mention, as described very carefully by me in the RfC/U, were some email exchanges with Technophant over the RfC/U once Technophant had brought it. I knew nothing about the RfC/U until it was put in train by Technophant and I needed his guidance on how to fill in the different parts.
- This is always the case. They come as a "tag team" and a lynch mob with their "local" consensus of a (very) small number of email pals to attack me just to keep me away from Wikipedia. They do not attack as individuals, but rather they coordinate their attacks. The latest being P123ct1 falsely claiming that an IP accusing her of WP:OWN of being me (without naming me) and running her mouth to rally her troops [[4]]. I will employ restraint and not point out her (many) tactics of "doing something and then accusing me of doing it" but I will give this example [5]. Talking about a dossier [[6]]. I will simply ask her to read WP:HA#NOT, especially "Neither is tracking a user's contributions for policy violations". At the ANI against Gregkaye, I did not even track her, it was right there under everyone's nose, and I did point out what she did which was inconsistent with policy. It is her falsely accusing me of personally attacking her that is a policy violation. As far as my "article" edits, they speak for themselves. I got encouragement from PBS' words today, but now P123ct1 took it all away. Also, she just confronted me on my one "minor" edit to the IS article [7]. Instead of an edit war, I just let it be. She also attacked me by calling me names at [8]. Also, I am not even sure how consistent is her unfathomable conduct here [9] is with policy. My problem is I don't have a lot of free time on my hand. I am out of here. Worldedixor (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Worldedixor: I will not take any more WP:HOUND and WP:PA, and worse, from you. It is a simple as that. I was patient before, but no longer. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Please stop accusing me of what you do to me, and read this: "However, there is an endemic problem on Wikipedia of giving "harassment" a much broader and inaccurate meaning which encompasses." Also, please stop dragging me back into your Rehash and Battleground arena, every time I go away to avoid it. Worldedixor (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Worldedixor: I will not take any more WP:HOUND and WP:PA, and worse, from you. It is a simple as that. I was patient before, but no longer. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Worldedixor: As usual, you are selective in what you present. You know you were reprimanded by an admin for your behaviour on the AN/I. I would not have raised this had you not been selective. You cannot expect your WP:PA behaviour whenever you reappear not to have repercussions. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Stop your Battleground antics and allow this unbiased admin to objectively assess your conduct today. I have left all the "glory" of editing that article to you and your email pal long ago. Also, changing your edit after I had responded as you have done more than once, and like you did now [10] is inconsistent with policy. This is a verifiable fact. Don't label it an attack. Finally, you and your email pal should read WP:ADMINSHOP as it is inconsistent with policy, and you should not bite a WP:NEWCOMER just because they made an observation of your conduct. Have a good night and enjoy life. Worldedixor (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Yikes! I now know how my mother felt when she got mad at me and my sister fighting. Sadly, I've seem the progression of conflict between these two editors and P123ct1 has been always been patient and civil and does not deserve these attacks. As you can see in the RFC/U, WE has responds to everything in the lower section of the pyramid, just stopping short of outright name-calling. ~Technophant (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Technophant is not an unbiased "peacemaker" in this. He is P123ct1's email pal. As I stated above, this is always the case. They come as a "tag team" and a lynch mob to drag me to their WP:BATTLEGROUND rather than communicate as individual editors. This is why I have decided to walk away from any and all edit conflict to avoid a potential WP:EW with them not even revert their edits even though they always confront my "minimal" number of well sourced edits. It is just not worth it. I don't have the time to list all incidents of his conduct that is inconsistent with policy, but I don't need to. This unbiased admin, PBS, has seen through the cloud screens, and has stated facts about the "unjustified" RFC for which, in my opinion, Technophant has canvassed in bad faith and in sheer violation of policy WP:CANVASS. Also, his larger than life diagram here and accusations, to me, sound like a personal attack. I did not call him or P123ct1 names. Enough WP:REHASH and vindictiveness already. I have shown a lot of restraint today adhering to policy even after P123ct1's false accusation and personal attack as stated above and as can be seen here [11] (without naming me). They should not be allowed to push me. Worldedixor (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Worldedixor: Permit me to interject this here, as we had an edit conflict, and I haven't read the comments below. You are quite right, you have never name-called. But I don't think Technophant was suggesting that. Despite everything, you strike me as someone who knows what good manners are, I have seen it on the Talk page. But as I said before, you really cannot expect not to be "pushed" if you behave as you do. I wish you could see this. I have no wish to be vindictive towards you, I am just extremely exasperated. Can you remember how we both started off so well back in July? I remember it well. Let us call it a day for now. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 04:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Technophant is not an unbiased "peacemaker" in this. He is P123ct1's email pal. As I stated above, this is always the case. They come as a "tag team" and a lynch mob to drag me to their WP:BATTLEGROUND rather than communicate as individual editors. This is why I have decided to walk away from any and all edit conflict to avoid a potential WP:EW with them not even revert their edits even though they always confront my "minimal" number of well sourced edits. It is just not worth it. I don't have the time to list all incidents of his conduct that is inconsistent with policy, but I don't need to. This unbiased admin, PBS, has seen through the cloud screens, and has stated facts about the "unjustified" RFC for which, in my opinion, Technophant has canvassed in bad faith and in sheer violation of policy WP:CANVASS. Also, his larger than life diagram here and accusations, to me, sound like a personal attack. I did not call him or P123ct1 names. Enough WP:REHASH and vindictiveness already. I have shown a lot of restraint today adhering to policy even after P123ct1's false accusation and personal attack as stated above and as can be seen here [11] (without naming me). They should not be allowed to push me. Worldedixor (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- multiple (edit conflict)s: As a response to that I can say that yes we talk about you via email and do have coordinated the planning of our response (the RFC/U) by email. I know it's not ideal, however what's done is done. I'm here because I checked your contribs and to see where you have gone next. We aren't a "tag-team" of editors on the ISIL page, in fact we are in direct opposition in some recent issues there and I don't think a lynch-mob can consists of just two people. I can't speak for P123, however I have not used email to discuss you with any other editor off-wiki. We both think you are a good editor and have made some solid contributions, and could helpful, esp. with your knowledge of Arabic. We decided on the RFC/U as the kindest, gentlest route of trying to help you get back on track without feeling persecuted, however you decided the outcome of that by failing to respond to any of the valid issues presented. (BTW: the list of talk page transgressions were maybe half put together by myself, and the rest by other editors.) You fail to see that your fate is in your own hands and this all can be turned around by a either an about-face in attitude, or just staying away from the articles (and editors) where your attitude and behavior has been deemed intolerable. Also, Worldedixor continually claims that he is following policy but is habitually in violation of multiple guidelines and expected community norms, ie. civility, Talk, and NPA...~Technophant (talk) 03:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Also I do regret how the RFC/U was canvassed. A decision was made to keep it quiet so that Worldedixor wouldn't feel threatened or lynch mobbed. I contacted a few editor that have been involved with you so they could help write the RFC/U. I could have, and should have, advertised it on the relevant Wikiproject pages, article pages, and possibly Village Pump. If there had been a wider input, as an RFC/U is intended to generate I'm have little doubt that a topic ban would already be in place and this discussion wouldn't have had needed to occur.~Technophant (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- You are not telling the truth. If I am going to be sanctioned for telling the verifiable truth, so be it. Also, you don't need to scream at me with bold letters. I stopped using bold letters when I realized how it affected other editors. You are still doing it. The RFC/U was unwarranted and was done in complete bad faith. It was biased and there was nothing kind about it. It was a lynch mob and a bad faith pretext to call me all sort of names by a (very) small number of editors on the RFC Talk page and no one was ever sanctioned. You wanted your own "local" club and your (very) small consensus playground in the article. You did all you could to push me away. Well, you succeeded, and I have completely stayed away from the article even though I have exceptional knowledge in it, because of you and her. You both seem to have a pattern of systematically violating policy and then say sorry and "I regret", the most recent being this edit [12] that you made today for some self-serving agenda, when the closing admin expressly stated "No further edits should be made to this page". This is unjust, selective, as it is inconsistent with policy and other closed RFCs that are not edited at will by non-admins, and it has gotten way too old. I don't have time for this but I am sure that time, and other editors, will expose all. Have a good night and try to enjoy life and let others enjoy theirs. Worldedixor (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, PC123ct1, I remember, and I remember how a biased someone, who I will not include now because he has backed off, wound you up, enabled you, and put you against me. In any case, I am out of here. Have a good night the both of you. Enjoy life!... Worldedixor (talk) 04:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- You are not telling the truth. If I am going to be sanctioned for telling the verifiable truth, so be it. Also, you don't need to scream at me with bold letters. I stopped using bold letters when I realized how it affected other editors. You are still doing it. The RFC/U was unwarranted and was done in complete bad faith. It was biased and there was nothing kind about it. It was a lynch mob and a bad faith pretext to call me all sort of names by a (very) small number of editors on the RFC Talk page and no one was ever sanctioned. You wanted your own "local" club and your (very) small consensus playground in the article. You did all you could to push me away. Well, you succeeded, and I have completely stayed away from the article even though I have exceptional knowledge in it, because of you and her. You both seem to have a pattern of systematically violating policy and then say sorry and "I regret", the most recent being this edit [12] that you made today for some self-serving agenda, when the closing admin expressly stated "No further edits should be made to this page". This is unjust, selective, as it is inconsistent with policy and other closed RFCs that are not edited at will by non-admins, and it has gotten way too old. I don't have time for this but I am sure that time, and other editors, will expose all. Have a good night and try to enjoy life and let others enjoy theirs. Worldedixor (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Just to note that Worldedixor is now definitely out of here as Bishonen indefinitely and quite correctly blocked him. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Is this OK?
I have just added what I think is a fair question at: To [b] or not to be - adding qualification to Wikipedia's endorsement of ISIL as jihadist. I have edited it but it has time stamp 14:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC). Is this OK? Otherwise should I move it, adjust it, add heading or other? Thanks Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Here is the diff with total of four edits. Am also pinging @Felino123:. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Review of RfC Closure
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Closure review of RfC on general sanctions". Thank you.
Disambiguation link notification for November 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marc René, Marquis de Voyer de Paulmy d’Argenson, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Choiseul, Soubise and Aix. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
RfC/U
I have no idea what this is. It was never discussed with me. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
No doubts there's no shortage of reading that you've done and have to do
If there's a chance, and if not already done, please read the final edits in the thread: User talk:Technophant#Genuine concern. This, I think, creates a stark context to various accusations that have been made of late.
On another point I would appreciate the collapse to be removed from the Reduction of criticisms section if at all possible and will be happy to make any reasonable changes to my final edit as applicable. My view is that a whole truth or as near as practical should rightly be presented here.
I appreciate that there is a great deal of content to work through and appreciate your stewardship. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Re: "If there's a chance... " this was just a reference to "No doubts there's no shortage of reading that you... have to do" as per heading. I appreciate that you are busy but think that the text mentioned provides a relevant context. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Do you have any reason for wanting to keep this
Wikipedia:WikiProject Syrian Civil War
I would like to nominate it for deletion as unnecessary but wanted to check in case you had other preferences.
My worry is that too many locations provides opportunities for forum shopping.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Footnotes
Editors leaving bare URL footnotes is becoming a real problem in ISIS and I wondered if you had a solution. The count now stands at 24 and recently it reached 45. Earlier this year the highest it ever reached was about 15. When the editor can be traced, which is not easy to do, I have been leaving a polite message with an instructions template that I devised, but it is usually ignored. Technophant has even put these instructions on the Talk page for the Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant events article where the problem is worse, but again it is being ignored. Other editors convert the bare ULRs from time to time using the Reflinks replacement tool, but this only fills in some of the parameters which the editors do not complete, so the footnotes are still not right. I cannot find anything in Twinkle to notify editors about this. Brangifer once warned an editor who was a particular offender, but he was ignored. What can be done about this? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've amended several refs in the timeline document as at this diff I'd like to check the format that I've used if P123ct1 maybe wants to comment and I'd also like to raise an issue of potential content misrepresentation. I changed content text from: "14 U.S. airstrikes were launched" to "U.S., allies conduct 23 air strikes in Syria, Iraq" which was the text of the citation and changed "70 more members of the Albu Nimr tribe were executed by ISIL" to "70 more members of the Albu Nimr tribe were massacred by ISIL" as per the text of the article. I have seen several instances in related pages where the focus is put on the US or "America" and on Israel with a simultaneous move to minimise suggestion of involvement of Islamic groups and states. I think that it is possible that there is a connection between the possible misrepresentation of content and the failure to supply complete citations. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
@P123ct1 not a lot there is nothing that says an editor has to format a citation properly, it is assumed that new editors need to be helped with filling out citations. The only possible avenue is WP:CITEVAR, but that is tenuous unless an editor alters a previously formatted template. There is also the guidance just below WP:CITEVAR in Wikipedia:Citing sources#Avoid embedded links "Raw links are not recommended in lieu of properly written out citations, even if placed between ref tags", it might be possible, to escalate requests on the users talk page and if ignored to argue at an AN/I that it is disruptive, but I am not sure you would get a consensus. It may be more work to do the escalating thing than simply to format such citations and ask one on the users talk page if they could format them as you have done in the diff you show them. -- PBS (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
@Gregkaye I really, really do not want to get mixed up in the article content. I will make just one point in this case "massacred" is a pov word it implies illegality, just as "executed" is a pov word it implies legality. So in sentence like that it is usually better to use "killed" as that is a non-judgemental verb (see contentious labels). It is no use justifying the word "massacre" to the source, as in using the word the source is displaying a bias. -- PBS (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Can this content be collapsed?
PBS In the thread: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#To b or not to be - adding qualification to Wikipedia.27s endorsement of ISIL as jihadist, [[User:Technophant] (pls finish ping if relevant) begun the following section of text which I consider as a complete digression.
unsubstantiated digression on topic of WP:FRINGE
|
|---|
|
Technophant raised the issue at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as jihadist but even when being given a negative response, didn't strike previous text. I think that this has all the hallmarks of wanting to derail the discussion.
I would again like to propose that Technophant's comment at 18:45, 3 November 2014 is also collapsible. Again, this has all the hallmarks of derailment and which has attracted no related comment.
Thanks for considering these matters. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring
Not sure what needs to be done but thought you should know. There has been some reportedly/apparently escalating edit warring by the above named editor.
I was informed of an edit questionably against consensus at User_talk:Gregkaye#Lead_edit, I left a request for reversal at User_talk:Signedzzz#Can you please revert your edit, this was transferred to Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Can you please revert your edit with a degree of conflict, I have since been notified that of edit warring with long lists of edits by the same editor. involved editors P123ct1 Legacypac Myopia123 Dwpaul
Myopia123 has placed a "Template:uw-disruptive1" so far on Signedzzz talk page so I'm not sure if anything particular needs to be done right now.
[[13]] is very active at the moment. Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Reported for edit warring and (update) 48 hr blocked. Legacypac (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Colin Campbell (colonial governor)
- added links pointing to Arthur Wellesley and Horse Guards
- Victor de Broglie (1756–1794)
- added a link pointing to Marc-René de Voyer de Paulmy d'Argenson
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
November 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of Waterloo may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- Nijevelt]].<ref group=lower-alpha>Van Zuylen report; he refers to himself as "the chief-of-staff" ({{Harvnb|Bas|1909|pp=338–339}}(vol. 3).</ref><ref group=lower-alpha>Some of the retreating troops
- to kill three of the Scots Greys who had attempted the rescue.{{sfn|Hamilton-Williams|1994|p=304}}> By the time Ponsonby died, the momentum had entirely returned in favor of the French. Milhaud's
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know who can stop this editor unlilaterally collapsing threads on the Talk page which to me are a form of censorship. I was looking for a very contentious thread I had been involved in and found it collapsed and have reverted the collapse. An even more contentious collapse by the same editor can be seen from my comment here, but I did not revert the collapse this time. Are editors allowed to make major collapses of comment on the Talk page like this? The reasons given on the edit summaries look specious to me. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Only housekeeping on resolved issues, no ulterior motive, not even closes. If it bothers you and you want to continue a discussion, just revert the collapse-you know how obviously. Legacypac (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- @P123ct1 and Legacypac. There is a simple rule (which I wrote years ago) in the lead of WP:Refactor
- Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted. Nevertheless, if the page is larger than the recommended size, then archiving of the talk page, or sections with no recent contributions, without refactoring can still be done.
- At a technical level. Legacypac I have left comments on your talk page about this sort of refactoring before (User talk:Legacypac#Archive top, User talk:Legacypac#Closing templates). You must not place the template above the section header. This is for three reasons:
- Doing so means that the link from the Table of Content (TOC) fails.
- The archiving bot may not archive the two sections at the same time, or in the same order, and so the header may end up archiving a different section in the archives.
- I do not know if the text in the header will disrupt the bot when it is placed at the bottom of a section without a signature and so prevent archiving.
- So for those three reasons if you use any of these "closing" templates, Do not place the header of the "closing" template above the section header.
- -- PBS (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
So a collapse works like an archive then - Thanks. I just followed how another collapse was set up on the page. Not sure why that editor got upset after I collapsed a discussion debating an editor that was blocked, then withdrew from editing the article when faced with a potential second block. There was no censoring of him. It was good to tuck away the trouble. Legacypac (talk) 08:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Tuck away what trouble? Embarrassment caused to the ISIL editors by an outside editor? Chasing away an editor who had some good ideas was bad enough, but censoring the discussion is worse. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- I wonder about this editor's true motivation for wanting to cause trouble. Repeatedly assuming bad faith. Took a post off my talk page that was level headed. Collapsed a section himself, then uncollapsed several sections. No one is attacking P123ct1 but he acts like there is a war on him. PBS would you mind cleaning up some sections on the talk page 0 darn thing takes forever to search through. Legacypac (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Legacypac you wrote "Not sure why that editor got upset" You do not have to! If an editor reverts you refactoring they do not have to give a reason. If you are requested to revert your refactoring of a talk page then you should consider doing so as an act of good faith. The reason for this rule is simple, if people disagree about content in article space, the talk page is there to discuss the changes, edit warring on the talk page is dumb, even more so as we do not have a talk page of a talk page to explain action, so inevitably such disputes soon become a wikidrama at ANI and that is even dumber. So the simple rule on the talk page is reverting refactoring ends the issue. -- PBS (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Legacypac you wrote "So a collapse works like an archive then - Thanks." {{collapse top}} works under the same constraints as {{Hidden archive top}} and {{archive top}} etc, because all such templates refactor the page. To make it clear that what was happening was the closure of conversations and not archiving the wording of these templates place on the sections in which they work was changed from "archived" to "closed" so that people would not mistake the use of these templates as archiving (which has a specific meaning on Wikipedia). As pages like talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant are archived by a bot there is no need for you to archive anything from this page. -- PBS (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Both of you would have been far better off if your comments had ended with "So a collapse works like an archive then - Thanks. I just followed how another collapse was set up on the page". I was in a hurry to do something in the physical world, when I replied and had not read beyond the end of that comment. Most of what has been written by the two of you since the green sentence has been destructive and does not help build a collegiate atmosphere for further development of the article. You both now know precisely how the rules about refactoring works -- which was the point of this section -- so there is nothing to be gained by further conversation here. -- PBS (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Just to notify you that I have recently left a polite notification with Felino123 within the thread: Please discontinue your disruptive editing and please don't again repeat 1RR infringement. The context of this discussion is found at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Bold change of para order in Lead and notification of edit warring provided here. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Copying from one wikipedia article to another
Hi PBS, thanks for the heads up. Are there ways to go back and make an attribution that I did not make originally?Acad Ronin (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clement Cottrell-Dormer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Society of Antiquaries. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Hardly a tic between a change in the toc
Hi, this is just a heads up regarding recent activities on the ISIL page. There have recently been a few wholesale changes in the structure of the article twice by @Legacypac: and once by myself. An editor expressing concern was @P123ct1:. The long discussion on the subject is at: #Article Section Reorg - from 14 top level headings to 6 but a more basic summary, as it currently stands, is at #Reorganisations.
Again, this is not a request for action on my part but a notification of developments. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Of particular concern is that these major restructurings were done without consulting editors first; they suddenly "appeared", as a fait accompli. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Shortcut hatnotes
Hi. I noticed that you recently added a hatnote to WP:Shortcut, which itself contained a couple of shortcuts. I have been on something of a campaign recently against this practice of adding shortcut hatnotes to guidelines and Help pages. It seems like every every guideline and Help page on Wikipedia has one or two of these, and to me they seem really intrusive and distracting.
So I was wondering if you could take a look at some of the comments that I have been writing (just the first one is OK) and let me know what you think.
- WT:Shortcut#Shortcut hatnotes considered harmful
- WT:Hatnote#Redirect hatnotes for shortcuts
- Help_talk:Footnotes#About shortcut hatnotes
From the reaction I've got, the strongest support for this practice comes from experienced editors like yourself, who are used to motoring around Wikipedia by means of shortcuts. I am more worried about new users, who are confused and intimidated by all of this stuff. IMO, a user who just wants to know how to write a footnote shouldn't have to read about the Fringe theories/Noticeboard, just because there is a shortcut WP:FN that doesn't point to the Noticeboard.
So I would like to change the policy to say, "Don't use shortcuts in hatnotes." In fact, the ONLY place where shortcuts should appear on a guideline or Help page is in the little shortcut boxes, the ones labeled "Shortcuts:".
But given how prevalent this is, I think it would need to be widely discussed. Apparently people haven't seen the comments that I've been making on Talk pages, or they disagree, or something. So as an administrator could you give me some advice? Do you think this would be a suitable topic for an RfC? Thanks. (Oh, and I should say, the one you added seems much more reasonable than the others. So it's not that I'm objecting to that one in particular.) – Margin1522 (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Repeated disruptions
Can you please advise? I have just notified @LightandDark2000: requesting reverts on a number of far reaching disruptive edits here.
This user has previously been variously approached by users including.Legacypac, EkoGraf, and P123ct1 with content being typically selectively deleted without reply as demonstrated: here, here, here, and here.
Thanks Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- He participated in some interesting activity here [[14]] @Digger Nix: moved the page Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant events to Timeline of ISIS and Islamic State events (change of nomenclature at end of June). Instead of reverting because that name is against the move moritorium, @LightandDark2000: moved page Timeline of ISIS and Islamic State events to Timeline of ISIL and Islamic State events (Most widely used acronym is ISIL, at least at the government level.) then moved it again to Timeline of ISIL/Islamic State events. I moved the page to Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant related events because there was a complete RM on the page for that title. Title needs to be locked to prevent undiscussed moves. Legacypac (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peninsular War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Monzon. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
My edit
With reference to your dismissive edit summary, I removed the words on request. Not referring to this editor, but I see adults behaving like children wherever I turn in Wikipedia. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Although I understand why you had to make the comments you did on this matter, can I say something in general. I have never in my life had my behaviour or motives questioned as they have been in Wikipedia since I joined in February. It has been an unpleasant experience. I am not surprised that editors have been leaving in droves, apparently. I have come close to it myself several times. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
P-123 you cut (from your talk page) and pasted (to your archive 3) but the past does not match the cut! The title of the last section has been changed between the cut and the past. Then deletion of that section from the archive. The problem in future for anyone who cares to look at your archives they can not be sure that you archives match your talk page contributions. -- PBS (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have only just seen your message. I remember doing that,
but didn't realise moving fresh content to an archive would cause problemsand can see how blanking a thread at the cross-over point when moving fresh content to archive will cause problems. I wanted to shift the first part of the new Talk page to archive and start afresh, but have not done this before. I often get into tangles with archiving, and can now see why it says, "Do not edit the contents of this page" at the top of archives. Sorry. ~ P-123 (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Peninsular War
- added links pointing to Maya, Battle of Toulouse, Ers, Saint-Pierre and Villefranque
- John Moore (British Army officer)
- added links pointing to Charles Stanhope and Henry Burrard
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 9 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Battle of Corunna page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
So sorry
Sorry for my mistake on {{efn}}. I thought I was modifing the French version ! Simon Villeneuve (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
As to a lynching, and badgering
@PBS:
I would like to raise issues related to P-123.
- I recently continued a thread on this editor's page here
- My edit was refactored to a condition here with added capitalised boldly formatted statements added.
- Threads have been raised on my talk page here where I asked the unanswered question, "On what point do you disagree?"
- The Article talk page issues concerned were addressed (having avoided need for article talk page confrontation here.
- Regardless of this P-123 informed me here that s/he had had added concern to another editor, Anastaisis, which was done on the talk page of presumed administrator Lor. In the thread P-123 alludes to my "conduct on the Talk page with regard to some of the editing in the article". Time and time again I have asked P-123 to cite refs, occasions or anything and nothing has been forthcoming. I have asked either for specifics and for some tangibility or for this behaviour to stop. It just goes on and on.
After deliberation I had gone to P-123's talk page with the intention of leaving a Template:Olive branch. Another regularity in P-123's editing is to cite anti-ISIL aspects of editing and to drop unspecified claims of this alleged editing in various locations. At this point I found reference that "editors who are anti-ISIL are spoiling the article". For me this was the last straw. On regular occasion P-123 initiates with editors with regard to the instigation of action against other editors. I have been approached regarding taking editors to administration here regarding Mohammed al-Bukhari, here regarding Signedzzz which was extended here and here. I am raising these issues mainly because, when I approach editors on a personal basis to ask for guideline based behaviours on the talk page P-123 takes unbridge to this despite the fact that s/he seems happy to try to pin me down for any incursion.
Right now I really want the unsubstantiated accusations and insinuations to stop. I was once taken to AN/I for actions long past and that is being used with a newly involved editor. In the first instance I mentioned, when I had privately approached P-123 with a second attempt to ask for article talk page approaches to be moderated, moderation that was infact carried out, that same content was flagged with a mixture of just and unjust accusation loudly stated as if to a lynching.
I have made efforts towards conciliation as demonstrated here. This editor wants to criticise with no substantiation but resists reasoned criticism by return. GregKaye ✍♪ 17:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- @PBS:
- I noticed this thread some time ago but have only read it properly now. May I put my perpective on the matters Gregkaye alludes to. He was correct about this. I annotated his comments in preparation for an IBAN I was thinking of taking out. Gregkaye restored the original version before I did, I am not sure at what point.. I should have taken a copy of his comments and annotated those instead. I do not expect my account of this to be believed by either of you.
- Gregkaye believes many strange things about my motives, behind any remark I make anywhere. The reason why I will not respond to his requests for full accounts, reasons, justification, for any comment I make is that I have given them many times, on our Talk pages and on the main ISIS Talk page. His requests to me seem disingenuous. The questioning has become so intense in the past month, almost daily and at great length, despite repeated requests to desist, that in desperation I was thinking of taking out an IBAN.
- Parts of his above account and I stress only in my view amount to character assassination. It is full of misrepresentation and slanted versions of events. Another editor I imagine would take him to AN/I over this. He has accused another editor of similar things but to a lesser degree, who regularly responded by saying his words were defamatory. That editor, who contributed a lot to ISIS Talk page discussion, has since left editing in ISIS. Actually I think you were involved in dealing with that problem. I expect Gregkaye will interpret this comment as an insinuation. I am used to this. In view of it I had better spell it out: I believe the editor left because of Gregkaye.
- I cannot understand the continual questioning. I have never made any secret of my opinion that Gregkaye's editing is anti-ISIL and flouts NPOV, on both our Talk pages and on the main Talk page. I have voiced this opinion for a very long time and he is very familiar with my reasons for holding it. This was an amicable disagreement until recently. For some reason he no longer sees it as amicable. He does not take criticism well.
- I have no idea what is meant by "lynching" in the title of this thread or in the last comment. In fact, I cannot understand any of that paragraph. I have informed him that I will not be seeking an IBAN if we can remain civil on our Talk pages. This has made no impression as the same type of comments continue.
- I have pinged Gregkaye as it seems fair that he should see my response to his address to you. I hesitated to do this as there will probably be a lengthy response here in rebuttal of everything I have said. This is the usual pattern but I cannot do anything about it, I am sorry. P-123 (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Peninsular War
Apologies for what looks like sloppy citation work on my part. While I don't have time to verify that particular citation, based on my editing patterns of the time, "Esdaile" almost certainly refers to: Esdaile, Charles J. (2003). The Peninsular War: A New History. Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-4039-6231-7.
(Esdaile's Spanish Army... doesn't run to 300 pages, and Women... wasn't published then). Cheers. Albrecht (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Source vs. force
I noticed your: "Let the sources be with you" rather than "let force be with you". - I confess that a lot of quoting policies and guidelines (also in that discussion) is hard for me to understand, but that I feel force was used in moving an article from the version published and used in most sources for the article, to the version house style prescribes. I was told to understand that it is only one letter of difference, but I am still unhappy and would like to have at least the option to call a thing as its creator called it, even if it differs from house style. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
1814 campaign in north-east France
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- 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.
Run-on sentences
I occasionally have some difficulty reading your Talk comments. I believe this is due to a lack of punctuation between clauses and sentences. It feels kind of dickish to ask you to make more use of periods, commas, and semicolons, but I’m not sure what would be a more polite way to do so. So that’s what I’m asking while hoping I’m not causing offense. Thanks, and sorry. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 08:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Jasper Nicolls
- added a link pointing to Arthur Wellesley
- Waterloo Campaign
- added a link pointing to Mont-Saint-Jean
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
NPOV - WP Reference - ISIS
Some time ago in exchange with me and a couple of editors on your Talk page you spoke about how "executed" was a loaded word that WP should avoid, and you gave a WP "NPOV" reference, which I think also mentioned "terrorist" as another word to be wary of when speaking in WP's voice. What is this reference, please? I cannot find it. It is needed to counter a sentence that has been added in a prominent place in the Lead which directly calls ISIL a "terrorist" organization. This is a battle fought by editors months ago and it was finally accepted that WP could not use this word directly. Your help with this reference would be appreciated! P-123 (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
It's on P-123's talk page. Don't see what P-123 is concerned about in the article though. Legacypac (talk) 08:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Merry Merry
To you and yours
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Temporary IBAN request & collapsing discussion on the ISIS Talk page
Sorry, more problems. You can do without this at this time of year. Gregkaye has collapsed a thread in the middle of a very important discussion on NPOV on the Talk page (which has been brewing for weeks). He has effectively stopped the discussion. Are non-admins permitted to do this? (My view on this is in the collapsed comments.)
- The reason given for the collapse is that the discussion at this point was off-topic. It had developed into a discussion about WP:NPOV. My view, which I was developing at this point, was strongly rejected by two editors, one of them Gregkaye, and the next thing I knew was that Gregkaye, an involved editor, had collapsed the thread. In my view this is censorship, and I would like you to look at the discussion at around that point and in the collapse box near the end of this thread and take any necessary action. P-123 (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye does not like criticism; I cannot speak freely even on the Talk page now because of it. [I say this as the collapsing looked to me like an attempt to shut down discussion. Others may take a different view.] comment added later. Are you able to impose a temporary and comprehensive IBAN on us both over the Christmas period? I cannot see any editor wanting to edit over the holiday period (!), but his attempt to silence other editors - unless compliant with his stringent requirements (!) - is intolerable. P-123 (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- P-123 How is asking and challenging people not to violate guidelines such as WP:PA and WP:INDCRIT attempting "to silence other editors." How is a discussion on the content of the first section of the lead a "very important discussion on NPOV"? you are making an unsubstantiated accusation about me regarding misrepresentation at Lor's talk page and yet you are doing this here. This type of time wasting activity should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. To what extent does an editor here need to watch their back? GregKaye ✍♪ 16:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- This is not an appropriate forum to bring this up. GregKaye: I think your best course of action would be to take me to AN/I instead of this perpetual pursuit on at least five different forums now with the airing of grievances, hundreds of questions, and requests for justification and explanation of virtually anything I say or do. It would be easier to understand exactly what your charges were if they were properly marshalled in diffs. I have attempted to understand and answer some of the charges, but still my answers seem to be unsatisfactory. In my opinion this obsession will only stop with an IBAN or as I say a visit to AN/I. May I add that Gregkaye and I were once very good colleagues and we have worked together on the ISIS Talk page as a team of two on some major edits with no trouble at all. I would like to see this peaceful collaboration return. Gregkaye is a good editor but our dispute is getting in the way of this. P-123 (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- P-123 Please get real and do not misrepresent this. I was directly replying to your claims above. "This perpetual pursuit" is yours. I have not started any thread in this context. You, however, have started threads with both "parents" PBS and Lor. You have initiated on my talk page. I placed a variety of messages on your talk page all which have been deleted with one message (of response to your content) being transferred to my talk page. You then initiated substantial additional content on my talk page. You also raised serious issue of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:IDHT at talk:ISIL with content that utterly swung from the opening theme of the thread. Are these the forums you were talking about. At each stage I have responded to your content. On Lor's talk page you are suggesting AN/I at and are pushing for various sanctions. I regard this as a complete waste of admin and my time.
- Re: your statement that I make requests for justification and explanation of virtually anything you say or do. No! I ask BEGGING, that if you make an accusation that you provide citation or other specific reference to the alleged wrong-doing and that you make talk page comment in line with wp guidelines as per WP:ASPERSIONS. This is the basic thing that I ask for. You have not once marshalled a diff and your objection here astounds me. My fair replies will stop with you quitting from unjustified accusation. P-123 is, in my opinion, a POV driven editor who has started several pointless threads and enquiries that have wasted a great deal of editor time. These current threads are further examples of pointless time wasting activity. Please stop adding content and I won't reply. P-123 if our dispute is getting in the way then please stop disputing. GregKaye ✍♪ 17:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- GregKaye, you cannot expect silence after those misrepresentations and charges. I went to PBS and Lor in desperation, to find some solution to all this. Secondly, you know that I feel more strongly about WP:NPOV than anything else in WP editing and have told you so more than once over the months. You also know we profoundly agree about what NPOV means. I was alarmed when you shut down the discussion on the Talk page at the very point where you and another editor started to disagree strongly with my views on this. As for not providing diffs, as I have explained to you, any criticisms from me on our Talk pages are there for you to read, I have not removed any, and I have always stated them very clearly. You know how straightforward I am, and you have often said how you appreciated that. It is quite unreasonable in those circumstances to expect me to provide diffs, when all you needed to do was read those threads again. This dispute on your side at least is becoming more and more labyrinthine and losing all touch with reality, in my opinion. I will not read any further comments from you here; I think that is the safest thing to do. P-123 (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC) (several comments added here later)
- P-123 How is asking and challenging people not to violate guidelines such as WP:PA and WP:INDCRIT attempting "to silence other editors." How is a discussion on the content of the first section of the lead a "very important discussion on NPOV"? you are making an unsubstantiated accusation about me regarding misrepresentation at Lor's talk page and yet you are doing this here. This type of time wasting activity should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. To what extent does an editor here need to watch their back? GregKaye ✍♪ 16:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have just discovered this when cleaning up my userpages. Gregkaye did not ask permission or inform me he had erased content from my page. Surely this is against WP policy? P-123 (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hi PBS,
- There is what may be considered to be a summary of related material on my talk page. I have placed a number of good will messages and what I hoped would be helpful material on P-123's talk page and all but one item, transferred to my talk page, has been deleted.
- The important discussion mentioned related to a proposal to reorder content of the first sentence of the ISIL lead with the result of dividing content into separate sentences and adding early reference to caliphate. It was requested that "short descriptions" be added within various sentences. I have not made any proposal related to "jihadist" terminology for a long time and I made the new proposal of swapping the word Islamist (more commonly used in sources) for jihadist (less commonly used in sources). The discussion developed to the point that, to his/her credit, P-123 gave an apology for ensuing talk page behaviour but this was then followed by an unsubstantiated accusation on Legacypac. At this point I collapsed the discussion and placed a query at Lor's talk page which was done as s/he was the parent that P-123 had been going to recently and I asked for comment to, "check whether ... the right courses of action" had been taken here. Lor is also the admin that I had been pinging in relation to my interactions with P-123 of late.
- In addition to the recent thread, P-123 has been making a number of what I regard to be questionable edits of late including this. As has been my way when possible I broached issues in a private discussion but at this point, after having engaged in many long discussions with this editor, I lacked some patience. I really regarded the edit to approach an IAR situation and on an issue that it turned out that this editor did not even support. I have now spent much of today chasing after and responding to various unsubstantiated accusations when I would have really liked to have been doing other things.
- The link that P-123 supplies is explained in the deletion thread on my talk page.
- Anyway, merry Christmas. I wanted to create a "Santa's little sockpuppet" login to scatter some good cheer today. (can you advise if this would have been legit. Please accept some good cheer anyway.
GregKaye ✍♪ 21:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC) - GregKaye ✍♪ 21:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- add: The other thing, I honestly don't mind criticism and have no problem with openness. As P-123 knows "s/he" got me really into doing some soul searching one time. On another occasion I was open to the whole talk page regarding the chronologically questionable placement of some of my edits. I have no problem with just criticism and admitting when I am wrong. One thing that P-123 has been doing a lot recently is adding his/her edits in the midst of my content which is something that I have never known any other editor to do. At the present I think that this editor is acting in an utterly unaccountable way. For instance recently s/he stated ~"I will not be going to other parent" and yet we are now here. I don't think that an IBAN would necessarily be a positive thing.
- I personally want the WP:ASPERSIONS, and the editing within another user's edits to stop. If P-123 can substantiate any infringement of policy on my part I will also be happy to comply. GregKaye ✍♪ 21:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Lor: GregKaye ✍♪ 21:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- I regret some of the bad behavior I have shown during the dispute recently. It has been erratic and untypical. The prolongation of this dispute has driven me beyond endurance at times and it is that which accounts for it. The dispute has got out of all proportion and the only way I could see to halt it was an IBAN. I do not think anything else will work at the moment. I am prepared to forget what has happened but I do not think Gregkaye is yet. P-123 (talk) 08:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Refactoring
Can I preface this by saying that the following account may seem petty at first glance, but I believe there is an important principle at stake here. I cannot find the appropriate WP policy on editors unilaterally altering other editors' comments on Talk pages, but I am sure there is one. I need your guidance on this.
- On the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant Talk page in this discussion, Gregkaye removed from his comments two comments I had added part-way through his. He objected to my interventions part-way through his. I can understand his objection.
- However, he unilaterally moved them both below his comments so that they lost their context and made no sense. This removal was done here, with a rather aggressive edit summary.
- I put my comments in a collapse box that I drew up titled "Refactoring muddle". (I wrongly said in a later edit summary that Gregkaye had put them in a collapse box, but obviously cannot correct the edit summary now.)
- I then added notes in the places they had been removed from saying that they had been refactored.
- Gregkaye reverted that last edit, with a peremptory edit summary objecting to the word "refactored".
- I re-added the notes amending the wording to "removed" here. What will now happen to that edit is anyone's guess.
- Inside the collapse box you will see his remark near the end, "P-123 Please do not focus on refactoring as being the problem here. Please do not edit within other editors edits. You could have easily refactored your content to give it more coherent sense", delivered in his customary hectoring manner.
- Gregkaye has altered another edit I made on the Talk page here, with again a peremptory edit summary.
Please would you look at this, give an opinion on Gregkaye's actions, and direct me to the relevant WP policy on this. Thanks. ~ P-123 (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- P-123, For crying out loud. This is Christmas day and there is more of this time wasting . Edits such as this show that P-123 edits within my edits. I have repeatedly asked for this to stop. On my talk page I have asked "You have repeatedly edited within my edits which is something that I had never seen you previously do and had never noticed anyone else doing. Was this a deliberate provocation?" and again, "You have repeatedly edited within my edits... Was this a deliberate provocation?" Please answer the question. Please confirm that you will no longer edit within my edits and then edit war when I remove your unwelcome and intrusive content. I am not having fun. For everyone's sake please quit your harassment.
- P-123 says "I then added notes" and this again was an intrusion into my posts again showing no respect for another editors edits.
- Of course I objected to it. All I did was that I relocated your intrusion.
- I added a comment which rightly you should have done and this was done after your signature. When have I ever altered one of your edits?
This harassment has got to stop. GregKaye ✍♪ 00:52, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- PBS, in the summary of this edit P-123 states "Undid revision 639470420 by Gregkaye (talk)My comments may not have been refactored, but they have been unilaterally removed by Gregkaye and put in a collapse box" and this was written in this way despite the fact that P-123 was the editor who collapsed (with condemnatory comment) the content here. There was no refactoring, just a move of intrusive text. P-123 please just apologise. GregKaye ✍♪ 03:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- On the word "refactored", I changed that the other day to "moved" wherever the word appeared. I am not clear, but owing to the objection, I am assuming refactoring means actually changing an editor's text. Here the text was only moved, but when it lost context it lost its meaning, which to me is as bad, as sense can be altered as much through losing context as by changing words. P-123 (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amaiur o Maya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basque. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
P-123: ANI
FYI: Gregkaye has taken me to AN/I for sundry offences. Perhaps it will clear the air at last! See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. ~ P-123 (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- P-123 I have always been keen to clear the air but, none-the-less, events have happened. One of the "sundry offences" related to the highlighting of User's names. I know that this is a User talk page yet you persist in the naming of editors in titles. Please give your full consideration to the issues mentioned. See also my final comment at 03:50, 25 Dec. That would be a gift. GregKaye ✍♪ 17:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- PBS, if by any means it might be something you could be bothered to do I would be happy for you to review thread December 2014 in current or subsequent forms as on the talk page of P-123 and weigh in or not as you see fit. From my perspective there are some things that I would really like P-123 to take on board but I don't see this happening. Your advice regarding the deletion of the mentioned AN/I text would also be appreciated. As you know I have always thought that people should be able to stand by their words at least leaving reference to the things they have said but I am willing to take advice. Thanks. GregKaye ✍♪ 20:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- PBS, thank-you for what I consider to be your thoughtful intervention in regard to the AN/I regarding P-123.
- However the way I see it is that the issues that I mentioned in regard to editing practice are not specific to "ISIL" related topics and the issues related to unsubstantiated accusations are not specific to me. Don't get me wrong, I want an end to this confrontation but, while I would go along with a voluntary restriction if that is what is chosen, my concern is that this resolves nothing.
- I remain in disagreement with a Wikipedia system that may be punitive without an aim for resolution and that it, as I see it, may fail to get editors to make sense of what has happened. I will be defer to any decision that P-123 makes regarding the AN/I but, while I don't doubt that some form of penalty is warranted in relation to the issues mentioned, I would have preference for an option that, from my point of view, achieved genuine resolution in relation to the issues mentioned.
- I don't know if it is correct procedure to contact you directly on this and, if necessary, would not object to this content being transferred to the AN/I. I just wanted to check in case there were further options in regard to situation resolution. GregKaye 16:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- PBS, as you will have seen, I changed my mind about a topic ban and said in my "Comments (2)" that I seek an IBAN, but you seem to think an IBAN would be inappropriate. Like Gregkaye, I would like this matter to be sorted out properly on the grounds that he brought the AN/I. P-123 (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ping EdJohnston to notify of thread. GregKaye 18:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
The three wise IPs
Three IPs have contributed, seemingly knowledgeably, to the recent AN/I ([Special:Contributions/172.56.16.152|172.56.16.152]], [Special:Contributions/69.22.169.73|69.22.169.73]], [Special:Contributions/193.109.199.132|193.109.199.132]]) and both P-123 and Legacypac have both raised query. Beyond the basics of sockpuppetry, is there anyway this can be investigated. Not with great hope that it may help much I have deliberately retracted the ping from the IPs. Also Ping @Dougweller. GregKaye 10:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- One of the IPs, 69.22.169.73, has also engaged in thread (Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#"Jihadist" dropped from Lead, "Islamist" substituted) in which only P-123 and myself have been involved. Can I ask for this content either to be collapsed or removed? GregKaye 10:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- I checked on the IP's with http://www.iplocation.net/ with the first seemingly based in SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES, the second seemingly based in Manhatten and with the third in South London 50 or so miles from me but no connection seems apparent between the logins. GregKaye 12:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)