User talk:P-123/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Editing archived pages

I just noticed that you edited an archived page. That's not allowed, unless it's some type of archive page maintenance. I'm sure this was accidental, so just keep up the good work in other areas. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

tools

This page has a "user contribution" menu in the "tools" menu on the left. There you can specify the month, year and type of pages.

84.106.11.117 (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

(This is the link he sent on VP Help desk:=

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=P123ct1&namespace=1&tagfilter=&year=2014&month=3 )

Talkback

Hello, P-123. You have new messages at K6ka's talk page.
Message added 19:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--k6ka (talk | contribs) 19:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

recent post about footnotes

Looked like the right page to me. I was going to reply and it vanished! Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Terrorist

Responding here. I know you haven't. He once again has said he won't edit the article anymore after I pointed out on his talk page that 1RR is not a right and he is editing against consensus. I don't think he's happy. Dougweller (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

"Cut my head off is slang". To see it as racist shows a lack of good faith. And of course " Your two-faced underhanded statement(s) about me are racist" is a personal attack. There are times however when good faith doesn't have to be extended - and if an editor continually fails to show good faith towards other editors, that editor may not merit good faith being extended to them. But you have shown nothing but good faith towards other editors. Dougweller (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

All a bit strange, when I don't even know what nationality he is! --P123ct1 (talk)

I agree with your comment. Some people are best ignored. You might want to read User talk:Dougweller#Thanks also. Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem started with the word "terrorist" in the lead being too strong and flouting WP:NPOV. Although the organization is considered terrorist, we don't use it as an adjective. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Supersaiyen312: You are quite right, it did, and indeed that was the reason. Have you read the long discussion about it on the Talk page? I tried to explain why NPOV was important, but it was hard to get the message across. Dougweller has now reverted the last insertion of "terrorist" as I didn't want to edit-war! We can only say that ISIS is a terrorist organisation by saying that it is designated as such by governments and called that by media sources - in other words, we cannot say it directly. We need some foreign overseas media sources for the footnotes at the end of that sentence, so if you can find any, it would be a great help! We don't want more than five footnotes in all, and can swap some of the US and UK ones for a couple of foreignoverseas ones. I am not quite sure what Dougweller meant by "foreign""overseas" (he suggested this on the Talk page), but I presume he meant just non-US and non-UK. If you can find some (I found the others), just put them on the Talk page and we can decide which of them to put in. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Supersaiyen312: And thanks for that note you put on the Talk page just now (which I have just read). It is very useful to have that stated clearly for readers, to give them the context of that long discussion. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Referred to you

but not by name at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#Despair - I hope you don't mind. I certainly wasn't thinking of him when I started that section, but his behavior and name-calling is the sort of thing that does drive editors away, although he obviously sees it differently. He certainly should have have reinstated that post to his talk page that you wrote and then decided to remove. Dougweller (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC) (I think he means "shouldn't" P123ct1)

Removing an edit you made from someone else's talk page

I think that's ok, especially when no one has replied, but raised it at Wikipedia talk:User pages#Guidance on editors reinstating a post added & then removed by another because I'd like something added to our guidance. Dougweller (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. It's all there in the history of course, so any other Admin or in fact any editor can see it. I noticed what he reverted. Doesn't matter. Dougweller (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Done!

0) --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 08:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Technophant

I would like to make certain that you are aware of Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Edits by and on behalf of banned users. You are not permitted to edit on Technophant's behalf. I hope that any e-mail exchange you may be having is strictly of a personal nature and does not relate to any article edits.—Kww(talk) 13:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

No proxy behavior, just personal emails and Technophant is unblocked now. --P123ct1

Disambiguation link notification for August 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Telegraph and Anbar. 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) 09:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for taking the time to defend your friends. You seem like a kind person and you deserve recognition. (I've been following the Technophant case.)

Supersaiyen312 (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Our friend

Given his edit summary calling you a stalker, shall I take him to ANI? I wouldn't want to do this if you'd prefer me not to or don't intend to participate if I do. Dougweller (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Name

I'll start an RfC shortly. Using 'the' would be very unusual, by the way, unless we can show that most reliable English language sources use it. All this translation or transliteration stuff is really irrelevant as we go by reliable English language sources, not our interpretations of the Arabic. Dougweller (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Islamic state article

Careful with your edits, I see Worldedixor has obviously broken 1RR. His post to the talk page is a bit odd, no? Dougweller (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: It is very odd. I'm not sure who that was referring to or why. There was no need to alter anything after his revert as he made some other changes afterwards and everything reads okay now. In fact, he did three good edits subsequently, I thought, one quote correction, a new footnote and brief expansion of an earlier entry in the 2014 timeline. The expansion added the word "genocide" (5th August entry), which wasn't actually in the citation, but it is what was meant. (I don't remember anything being deleted there as he notes.) Do you think it is all right to use "genocide" if not in a citation, or is it one of those loaded words again? And would it be appropriate to remind editors on the Talk page to do their citations properly? Nearly every other foonote has been a bare URL lately! --P123ct1 (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It is definitely a word we should only use with sources - like terrorists. Even if we agree it's correct. These bare urls are a pain, maybe notify any editor who adds one? Dougweller (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: I will have to leave reverting "genocide" which is not in the citation (except briefly highlighted in a snippet from a Tweet at the bottom of the article) until tomorrow, as I don't want to break the 1RR! --P123ct1 (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm baaaack! I've also added my support for merger of Yazidi persecution by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant for the time being. - Technophant (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I would like to thank you for your support in my unblock discussions and for showing a high degree of maturity, integrity, and perseverance in my absence. - Technophant (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Replied

Over to you now I think if you feel up to it. Dougweller (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Anwar al-Awlaki

Hi. Re. your edits to the article, such as [1] and [2], the Wikipedia Manual of Style suggests (a) to write "UK", and not "U.K."; and, (b), although "U.S." is acceptable in other circumstances, it suggests writing "US" in articles that also use other national abbreviations such as "UK". Perhaps you would consider changing the spellings back, given the MOS guidance? Best, It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 12:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I was aware of MoS, and changed "US" to "U.S." and "UK" to "U.K." only to be consistent with the many other mentions in the article. Have now reverted my edit and changed all other mentions in the article of "U.S." and "U.K." to "US" and "UK". --P123ct1 (talk) 07:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

We've got a help desk for wiki stuff

See Wikipedia:Help desk. Not my cup of tea, sorry. Dougweller (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

[3]

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant 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:

• 31 July 2014 }}</ref> the [[United States]]<ref name="US proscribed"/>, the [[European Union]]{{cn}, the [[United Kingdom]]<ref name="UK proscribed"/>, [[Australia]]<ref name="Australia
• {{lang|ar|محارب عبد اللطيف الجبوري}})<br />''{{transl|ar|DIN|Muḥārib ʿAbd al-Laṭīf al-Ǧabūrī}}'')

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant 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 Study of War, ISIS's annual reports reveal a [[performance metric|metric]]s-driven military [[Command and control|command, which is "a strong indication of a unified, coherent leadership

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

IS or ISIS, 'terrorists'?

Dear colleague, I've just posed some mild criticism concerning a recent edit of yours, on: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Citations needed for countries in Lead. Perhaps you feel like reacting on that. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Note to self: answered on Talk page. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Lucky it was only mild criticism, given what he says to others. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Syrian civil war sanctions notice

As a result of a community decision, broad editing restrictions apply to all pages broadly related to the Syrian Civil War. These sanctions are described at Talk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions and a brief summary is included below:

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

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

This notice is effective only if logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/General sanctions#Log of notifications.

--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned you at

WP:ANI#Should these articles still be under the community place Syrian Civil War sanctions. Dougweller (talk) 09:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

"If you need an edit done... "

P123ct1, I just noticed this offer on Worldedixor's page. It's completely inappropriate. Please don't game the 1RR restriction or attempt to trade "1RR allowances". Bishonen | talk 12:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC).

Replied saying had already resolved this with the admin and that it was an offer genuinely made without thought of the implications.

You are being mentioned again

Worldelixor has brought his complaint against you and I collaborating to User:Adjwilley's talk page. ~Technophant (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean possibly collaborating! There has been none! --P123ct1 (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	I can't believe it, you have 4,620 "Live edits" and 0 "Deleted edits". That has to be a record!! ~Technophant (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Remember nearly all of them are only copy-edits and some very tiny, and that an awful lot of them were repairs/corrections of footnotes! I imagine copy-editors clock up more edits than "contributing" editors by the nature of their work: small adjustments here and there to get an article into decent shape for the reading public. It is humble work, by my, does Wikipedia need it; there are so many badly written articles I have been shocked by it. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hurry up and make one more minor edit then you'll have 500. It only takes one user to ruin your record. ~Technophant (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done --P123ct1 (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm P123ct1. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please use the following to create Wikipedia citations P123ct1 (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC

How on earth did this happen?

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Management of Savagery 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:

• ''''Management of Savagery: The Most Critical Stage Through Which the Ummah Will Pass''''' ({{lang-ar|إدارة التوحش}}, ''Idarat al-Tawahhush'', also translated ''Administration of Savagery''<

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant 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:

• languages, including English. According to the magazine, its name is taken from the town of [[Dabiq] in northern Syria, which is mentioned in a [[hadith]] about [[Islamic eschatology|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

For your kind explanation.ShulMaven (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. 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) 09:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

RfD discussion of Islamic State

• Because you have participated in the move discussion at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, you are being notified of the RfD discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 7#Islamic State. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Found this at WP:RFC

Publicizing an RfC

After you create an RfC, it will be noticed by editors that watch the talk page, and by some editors in the Feedback Request Service who are notified by a bot. However, there may not be enough editors to get sufficient input. To get more input, you may publicize the RfC by posting a notice at one or more of the following locations:

• One of the Village Pump forums, such as those for policy issues, proposals, or miscellaneous
• Noticeboards such as point-of-view noticeboard, reliable source noticeboard, or original research noticeboard
• Talk pages of relevant WikiProjects
• Talk pages of editors listed in the Feedback Request Service. You must select editors from the list at random; you cannot pick editors that will be on "your side" in a dispute.
• Talk pages of closely related articles or policies

When posting a notice at those locations, provide a link to the RfC, and a brief statement, but do not argue the RfC. Take care to adhere to the canvassing guideline, which prohibits notifying a chosen group of editors who may be biased. Dougweller (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources problems

That's what WP:RSN is for. Clear section heading, eg "Is this source suitable for the statement....", then "X source is being used to back this: "statement....". I believe it fails WP:RS because... or some such wording. Got to make pancakes now. Dougweller (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Question on footnotes

I've checked all the links on Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Notes and was unable to locate a problem. Could you point me in the right direction?

Thanks. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back on this. There is a quotation which has ISIL instead of ISIS according to the footnote. The quote in the text begins "ISIL is the strongest group in Northern Syria ..." which you can find with search button and compare with the quote in the citation. The other two text quotes that had ISIL were okay. The two footnotes that have ISIL instead of ISIS are numbers 82 and 105. I checked all the others that had ISIL in the title, but they were okay. You must have done a global change from ISIS to ISIL; it would account for why the footnotes and quotation were changed. It can be quite dangerous to do global changes, for just this sort of reason! Fortunately it didn't stop those footnotes from calling up okay, which surprised me, tbh. If you could just change those few instances back to ISIS, this will close the problem. Footnotes can sometimes be a great nuisance and are often more trouble than they are worth, in my opinion! I don't think you have done any yet, but when you compose a footnote, can you always do it using the WP cite templates, please, as bare URLs can go dead at any time. I left a note about it for editors in the Talk page here, but some will insist on leaving them as bare URLs. Very frustrating. I don't know how experienced you are with composing footnotes, but I have drawn up a template with some simple instructions which I could let you have if you like; I made one as the WP instructions are none too clear unless you can run the accompanying video. Cheers, P123ct1 (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully that's all done now but let me know if there is anything else. I only really have experience with citations through the edit cite function so a link to a guide on footnotes could really help. Thanks for that. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look, and in the meantime here is the boilerplate message, or whatever the right terminology is. If you know how to use the edit cite function, you probably won't need it, but it's useful to pass around to others. (You can see the code for it in the wikitext of this message - it ain't patented!)

{{User:P123ct1/My template}}

That's it. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

All good. Deletion was as the hatnote at the top of my talk page and as per talk page history. Thanks again. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: I checked as well and all okay now, phew. Thanks. Sorry about the double-posting muddle, btw, forgot to erase my message to you here when I decided to post it on your TP instead! --P123ct1 (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem. I just think its good practice to reply directly to comments, where possible in sequence and things like that. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Happy United Kingdom staying united day!

I'm not sure about your feelings about this, however this does seem to be a good thing for the economic and political stability of England. I want to show you a useful little website to fix text that's all uppercase or lowercase called http://convertcase.net/. It's very useful for fixing refs.~Technophant (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Technophant: Thanks! What a useful site. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

When facing a Barn Start

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Dedicated to the realistic and experienced editor who "wouldn't start from here" Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		In respect for much the same reason. I looked for a perseverance barnstar but that was not to be. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: Thanks! That was a real surprise. I am glad I have managed to make someone laugh on a Talk page. Actually I am not that experienced, which is probably quite useful. A relative newcomer (February this year) can perhaps see things more clearly than those who are more deeply involved! --P123ct1 (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anbar. 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) 09:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Translation

Greetings,

1. I see that I was pinged a few days ago. Are you still in need of assistance or has the time passed?

2. Have you considered starting an archive for your talk page?

All the best. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo: I didn't think I had actually pinged you! I was looking for someone to translate a short Arabic citation for our Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant article, and it is just a case of me finding the time to sort out my query, as things are very hectic there at the moment. I will be in touch. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, MezzoMezzo. I have found that Arabic citation and it is here. If you need some background, we took a question to the WP:RSN here - you only need read the first three paragraphs to put you in the picture.

You will see that citation is in the list we provided for the RSN and that part of it was translated there for the RSN by an editor on the team, Worldedixor, an Arabic-speaker, but clearly his translation will need corroboration. What does it say, please?

Later: Something very curious has happened. I have just called up that citation and miraculously it now has an English Google translation! It did not have one before, hence our problem. Perhaps you would check that the translation there is accurate, please. We may need to quote the translation in the footnote, so if you could put it into good English, that would be appreciated. (Google translations from the Arabic can be a bit hit and miss as we have discovered.) By the way, Daash is another name for the Islamic State/Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS/ISIL), the terrorist group in question. There is no pressure to have the translation back quickly, by the way.

Regards, P123ct1 (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

PS In case you are curious, I found your name via the WP:HD here.

Well, that's certainly a welcome coincidence. I'm about to step out in a few minutes, but in the coming days I will attempt to review the translation. The main issue with Google Translate is that it can translate words but not syntax, so sometimes the sentence structures get funny between English and Arabic. I'll try to throw in my two cents soon. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Evening star

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		for all your invaluable contributions to the Isil page. Really hoping that all is well. The fortune is with whichever pages or whichever involvements that will get your attention. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Broken refs

There's a bot that will automatically search past revisions for broken references. I think it scans once a day. Finding broken refs is labor intensive, so if you know the ref is in the past then you can just let it be and it will be fixed within 24 hours.~Technophant (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Technophant: Those footnotes have been absent from the Lead for a very long time (end of August at least). By chance when editing the "History" section just now I spotted that the sentence they had originally been attached to had been moved from the Lead to the revamped "History" section but without the footnotes. It wasn't difficult to find them in a late August version of the page and just copy them over. Luckily I remembered there was once a string of footnotes attached to that sentence. (I think it might have even been me who removed them in the drive to reduce the number of Lead footnotes, and that was ages ago.) That sentence without its footnotes has been in the "History" section for over 24 hours, so why did the bot miss it? Interesting technical point. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I would need to figure out which bot and take a look at the talk page. I probably limits it search to less than the last 100 revisions due to computational limitations.~Technophant (talk) 08:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm up too late and need to go to bed. For you it's Sat morning. Its nice to be able to work on the article on not have edit conflicts or reverts while you edit. I expect there may be some attempted reversions in the morning when the north americans wake up see what's happened to the article. I've already been "thanked" by User:Gregaye for moving the infoboxes. I suspect sombody may throw a hissyfit but cie la vie...~Technophant (talk) 08:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Using The in ISIL

You reverted my changes here. Can you please help me understand why this is better or more clear? I don't see it that way.~Technophant (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Technophant:: I thought it was a mistake. The version just before the one I altered here started with "As Islamic State of Iraq" and then went on to add a "the" before the ISIS and IS headings. I also remembered that when the article had "As" in the subheadings, there was no "the" in the titles. I didn't realise you had added "the" deliberately! I do think "the" looks a little strange, but would you like me to revert? --P123ct1 (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Why

When a discussion continued in relation to the use of the term "jihadist" in the ISIL article why did you place a link from a thread relating to the relevance of Jihad to a topic discussing the sequence of the order of the lead? I had previously requested that discussion could be kept in context. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Greg, I put that note in as there were parallel discussions on "jihadist" going on in both threads! 0) I was going to suggest replacing it with a note similar to the one you put in, but you beat me to it. :) --P123ct1 (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The question why becomes when - don't bother, really, don't bother. You know that I am in a situation that may result in my losing editing rights and I would appreciate it if people did not, intentionally or not, rig the context of the debate against me. There are two ways that you directions with which you could have begun your redirects. You made your choice. Please respect the note at the top of my talk page. :( Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Sincerely, I was trying to help, but made a mess of it. Don't know if you saw my general comment at the end of the Talk page thread here. It was a proposed solution meant to help all editors. I don't want anything heavy or a situation to develop where you might lose rights. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Unless you want to join the band wagon of the incoherent and dangerous misuse of jihadist terminologies or have content to add then it may be as well to step away and let things take their natural progression. Raising and re-raising the same issue without purpose does not help. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to show good faith, but it isn't working, is it? If you still can't understand why I keep raising the point like a parrot, I think it's quite serious, for you. It goes right to the heart of what WP is about, neutral reporting. The impartial way to deal with the Muslim scholars criticism, which rightly belongs in the Lead, as the Lead is meant to cover major criticisms, is to add it in with the other neutrally stated criticisms in the last Lead para. That was the next thing I was going to do when I saw someone had removed it completely. Btw, your sentence in the Lead about Amnesty and ethnic cleansing I took up yesterday and expanded on considerably in the "Human rights abuses" section. No-one had thought to do that before. So please don't imply that I am being unconstructive. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not personally likely to lose my life to a radicalised Muslim so no, in comparison, there is nothing greatly serious in this for me. In the current case we have an organisation that has lept paces forward in regard to extremist behaviour to the effect that even some of the most highly radicalised Muslims are disowning them. I fail to see how it is in anyway neutral to credit them as jihadist. Core aspects of their faithfulness are called into question. Wikipedia has a policy to assess the notability of a subject in that it asks for verification from secondary sources. As a result, primary sources may sometimes be considered with little regard. Sure we can go ahead against, Islamic and governmental preferences and declare them as the sole Islamic State striving for righteousness in their holy war. Sure that will be neutral. The song It ain't necessarily so can also be true of the self-serving spins of the press. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me for my ignorance but what does NB on the talk page stand for? Also, since this issue is now raised on ANI it is best to discuss it there. ~Technophant (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Technophant: "nota bene", Latin for "note well", i.e. "Please note this carefully". Often used in instances like that. Discuss what at ANI? If you mean the Lead edits, of course, and I am sure other editors would have a lot to say about them at ANI as well. Had no wish to prolong the debate here of all places. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye's disruptive editing and battleground attitude is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing on ISIL by User:Gregkaye. If there's any comments you want to be publically discussed please put them there. Also, I need your help with supporting evidence and recommended action. Perhaps "only put edit requests on talk page" for a length of time is the best solution. This issue has really tired me out. I've spent all morning dealing with it. Disruptions need to stop. ~Technophant (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Also nota bene says "Often abbreviated as "N.B.", "N.b." or "n.b."" I would suggest wikilinking to that page if you wish to use it in the future. I don't know how common this term is, this is the first time I've run across it. Just saying "Please note" is simpler but may not have the same imperative connotation.~Technophant (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Technophant: What do you mean by "Perhaps "only put edit requests on talk page" for a length of time is the best solution"? I don't know the first thing about ANIs. I hope you are going to ask others editors to comment. How are you going to announce it to them? --P123ct1 (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought about starting a new thread at the bottom of the ISIL talk page. This is acceptable, however I put the link in the two sections where the discussion is on going (and going and going) instead. Feel free to announce in a new section so all editors will notice it.~Technophant (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You put Oppose on the ANI. Do you realize that means that oppose any action against Greg? Is that what you meant? ~Technophant (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Technophant I have just seen this. I have rectified it and put "Comment". I can't see how it happened, though I was very tired. --P123ct1 (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand. Greg won't back down from his position (which is his right) so this dispute must be resolved by Dispute Resolution. Talk page discussion has failed to gain consensus. I'm really tired too. Going to bed now. I've spent the last 16 hours working on this!~Technophant (talk) 07:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned AN/I

Conversation

Thanks for the issues that you raised at the AN/I about "(a) who left this comment? (b) did they read the discussion? It concerned removal of the word "jihadist", not "jihad". Big difference." I am planning to raise the issue, re the previous entry, that my proposals were never for the actual removal of the wording but that we should find a way for it to be qualified. However I don't unnecessarily want to contradict you and thought you might prefer a review first. Cheers. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC) @Gregkaye: No, go ahead, I'll be happy with whatever you put. You have to defend yourself. I have said what I wanted to say on the AN/I now and won't add, until some/if any sanction is proposed. I don't mind if you criticize me on the AN/I, btw. I've always regarded the NPOV issue as our "professional" disagreement, which doesn't interfere with other editing or anything else, as I'm sure you know. :) It bothers me that some outside commenters don't seem to have read what editors have said properly. Did you see the outside comment that was removed swiftly by the commenter after I told them they had completely got hold of the wrong end of the stick? (Both comments erased now.) They thought the problem was over adding "jihadist", not erasing it! Good to see that one proposes only a very limited sanction. I think Technophant is due back today. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC) I'm happy either way. Now Im curious about the deletions. All good. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC) @Gregkaye: I have gone through all the diffs for this AN/I, specifically looking at the reverts, but cannot find it! I can't understand why it is not there. It was just before the unsigned "jihad" remark near the end.:) --P123ct1 (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC) No probs Stranger things have happened but I think I saw it. I need to remember to say in my mails when I'm planning to look for things myself. I'm not used to being associated with helpful people. Got more on my mind but also have something to put on WE's page. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Yep, in the absence of general help from editors in finding ways of giving qualification to jihadist in the article I'm actually genuinely happy about your intervention to get some kind of proceedings ball rolling. Kudos. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict) @Gregkaye: I was thinking the same thing. I will always fill the edit summaries for everything from now on. Normally I just do it for WP articles (not even the Talk pages). I noticed on one of WE's links in the AN/I to one of my sins there were my two edits, plus another edit (bolding the AN/I title) that was definitely not mine. Have noticed similar mix-ups before with diffs. I think you will have an uphill struggle to persuade WE that I am not a monster. In a way I can understand his issue since at one time editors were very unclear what a revert was and my gnomish edits (copy-eds), which were not reverts, he thought were reverts, and he thought I was getting favourable treatment by having them ignored and not being sanctioned for them. He even took some of us to an admin's Talk page to settle the matter, and in my case I was found not to have reverted, which must have rubbed salt in the wound. Anyway, enough of that. I hope he is all right. It must be awful to feel everyone is against you. The RfC/U was very harsh and now he has an admin hauling him up for the AN/I comments, though Bish did it without being unkind, unlike Brangifer. He is convinced I am two-faced. :( --P123ct1 (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Do you mean proceedings ball rolling on the AN/I, or on the Talk page? I have tried encouraging editors on the Talk page to work towards consensus on that last Lead para (see Talk page), and I think we need this for all disputed words/passages. It is too easy for discussion to meander on getting nowhere and just getting more and more heated. We need a marshall! Admin Dougweller used keep order on the page, although it didn't need it as much as it does now, but he left before you arrived. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC) You getting the ball rolling on the talk page which then resulted in the AN/I. "It must be..." but that did not last long. Sorry for not writing more am slow typist. :( There's another 1RR issue? Is PBS the best person to contact? Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Or is it appropriate to just present case info at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and leave it? Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC) I never wanted it to go to AN/I as you know and would have preferred dispute resolution - I spoke about this on the AN/I (see the WP Help Desk link I put there). Is there another 1RR issue? Best to be wary about taking someone to the Edit-warring Noticeboard because of the WP:BOOMERANG effect. Apparently you get scrutinised as much as the person taken there. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Have just looked and see who you mean. PBS is your safest bet. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC) TY. :) Hope our colleague doesn't think you are pro-P123. I can take criticism.if you ever want to balance it out, e.g. I was quite harsh to you on the Talk page in the run-up. :( --P123ct1 (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC) I've just take Technophant's suggestion of filing report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I'll give PBS the heads up. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC) @Gregkaye: 0:o! Tread carefully! --P123ct1 (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC) That sounds ominous. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC) @Gregkaye: I forgot to ping you with the comments above, so you may not have read them. Beware the WP:BOOMERANG effect. :( --P123ct1 (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC) I did everything with good conscience and have informed PBS of the situation asking advice. We'll see what happens. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4