This is an archive of past discussions with User:P-123. 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.
It's always good to keep things organized. Anyway, I finally am back at my computer and have checked out the article and it definitely mentions that Israel declared both ISIL (S? Whatever) and the Abdullah Azzam Brigades as teroris organizations (I intentionally misspell words like that to avoid certain filters). However, the talk page for the article on the former is really long. Where exactly is the discussion being held there? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
ISIS infoboxes
Thanks. However, I can't adjust the organization box to make them match the country box dimensions, because the length depends on how many bytes are taking up the space. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 07:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Timeline
I know you've given this a fair bit of thought and wondered whether it might be appropriate to suggest scrapping this section and just keeping the link in history. I recently gave the section the title "Timeline (latest events)" but it still takes three lines in the TOC. Current page size is 205,088 bytes. Cheers. Gregkaye✍♪17:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
@Gregkaye: Couldn't agree more. Have never been able to understand why it is duplicated in the ISIS article. I think a link with suitable wording is enough. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Links
Linking is really quite simple once you get the hang of it.
[moved instructions here to userpage]
I hope that helps -- PBS (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I used to put stuff like this on my main user page, I now put notes like this into a subpage -- unimaginatively called user:PBS/Notes. If you look at my user page you will see that I have various subpages for different things. -- PBS (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
If you decide that you want change the look of your user page then take a look at WP:UPDC and if that looks too complicated there are other users willing to help (see WP:UPH) -- PBS (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
@PBS: I haven't been here long enough (since Feb this year) to put much into it. I'm just a humble copy-editor! But thanks. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey this is the translation
I hope this is the article you mentioned. I haven't been logging in much to be honest. I'm sorry for the delay as truthfully I could have done this before, but we're all hit by procrastination sometimes. Anyway:
Exchange on translation
"Israel Declares ISIS and Abdullah Azzam as Terrorist Organizations!
"The Israeli Ministry of Defense declared on Wednesday, on the recommendation of the Israeli General Security Service, that the organizations Islamic State (known publicly as "ISIS") and the Abdullah Azzam Brigades as terrorist organizations according to local journalists.
"Yedioth Ahronoth stated in a report posted on its web site: 'The Israeli Ministry of Defense has declared that ISIS is regarded as a terrorist organization, in addition to the Abdullah Azzam Brigades.'
"The paper added that the radification of the recommendation 'is in order for the Israeli security apparatus to take legal steps against these groups."
It's a super short article so I'm kind of afraid I'm translating the wrong thing. If so, I let me know and I will move on to the correct story. I believe the "Israeli Gen Security Service" refers to Shin Bet though I'm not sure as the article doesn't specify. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
MezzoMezzo: Thanks, that is the translation we needed. In the sentence "The Israeli Ministry of Defence declared ... that the organisations ... [VERB?] as terrorist organisations ..." there seems to be a verb missing. Can you look at this sentence again, please? --P123ct1 (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The problem wasn't with the translation but with my English grammar. The pronoun "that" wasn't in the sentence of the original Arabic though I wrote it here...actually I'm not sure why. Here's a version with the superfluous pronoun deleted:
"Israel Declares ISIS and Abdullah Azzam as Terrorist Organizations!
"The Israeli Ministry of Defense declared on Wednesday, on the recommendation of the Israeli General Security Service, the organizations Islamic State (known publicly as "ISIS") and the Abdullah Azzam Brigades as terrorist organizations according to local journalists.
"Yedioth Ahronoth stated in a report posted on its web site: 'The Israeli Ministry of Defense has declared that ISIS is regarded as a terrorist organization, in addition to the Abdullah Azzam Brigades.'
"The paper added that the radification of the recommendation 'is in order for the Israeli security apparatus to take legal steps against these groups."
Thanks, that makes sense now. Twenty-one days to do a translation that only took 45 second to do! That must be a record! --P123ct1 (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh God, did I really take that long? That's a bit embarrassing...thanks for your patience. I hope you guys are able to use this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I was pretty certain Worldedixor's translation was accurate, which of course it is, but obviously it had to be corroborated by an independent source. I saw a WP guideline on this stressing the point, but cannot remember now where. I am not very good on WP guidelines and policy. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
UK Designation of ISIL
I reverted your revert of my change to the UK listing date. Please read pages 13, 14 and 15 of the linked Home Office doc and refer to Al-Qaida's listing of for the March 2011 date. If you still disagree, we can discuss. I understand that the UK designation ties in with the EU designation which ties back to the US Security Council designation. Legacypac (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Legacypac: Sorry, I missed it. It says March 2001 in the document, not 2011, and the spelling is "al-Qaeda" as per the Wiki article on al-Qaeda and this article. Could you alter the infobox, please? --P123ct1 (talk) 08:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Legacypac: I see your "UN Sanctions List" in the infobox has been changed to "via UN Sanctions", which is meaningless, so you may want to alter that as well. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Legacypac: Please would you correct them as they were your errors? Moving the cell in the infobox to fit in with the date sequence is particularly tricky and I am not used to dealing with infoboxes. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
@Gregkaye: What do you mean? The consensus I have been trying to determine on the last Lead para is within the WP guideline WP:LEAD. Are you referring to someone else's talk about consensus? What is the cabal you refer to? I am not aware of one on the ISIS page. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[Original thread title was "Cabal", altered by Gregkaye]
@Gregkaye: I have only just seen your insertions in that thread addressed to Felino. Were you talking about him? Having comments added in late which can be missed is very confusing. I had already put a note about it on the Talk page. :) A consensus decision on that edit has been reached now, I think, that there should be words added about Muslim criticism. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
@Gregkaye: I still cannot understand. I am fully aware of what a cabal is, but who is the cabal? This has been openly discussed by editors on the Talk page and a decision has been reached about that last Lead paragraph. Have you not read the thread, in full? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I've read the thread. My perception is that there has been an undisclosed edit war with the wholesale deletion of content. After a war, at peace negotiations, it is most fair to return to starting positions and then work out directions. It isn't right to just take ground and then begin talks from there. WP:LEAD presents its standard and IMO the current state of the lead is towards a proportional representation of the subject. Felino123 still hasn't explained why he wants criticism out of the lead. Gregkaye✍♪12:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
@Gregkaye: I have done my level best for that discussion on the Talk page. To me it was a decision fairly reached. You will have to fight it out with the others if you want to start from scratch. I do not agree with you on this as you know. Over to you now, I think. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that I have the excuse of either fog or battle. There is definitely a release after setting a few things straight ... and - then - I - do - this. It wasn't my thought or intention but all I achieved was a fairly false making of a WP:POINT. Its not the way that I would prefer to operate and, in this case, the word operate may be badly applied. sigh. Thanks for dealing with things here. Big appreciation. Gregkaye✍♪14:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
With regard to my late edit after you had given comment, would it be better if I went back to redact. I've added explanations but would be happy to redo things if need be. Gregkaye✍♪16:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I think I will go back to the original. The chat recently has related to the need to steer away from the bad editing behaviours that I have exhibited. I think that the full message gets this over succintly:
"I would like to explain/apologise for the timing and placement of some of my recent edits. For various reasons, which were partly due to my own responses, I had felt it difficult to respond to certain situations. Response has been late and has often been out of the continuity order of threads. This is bad editing practice and not an example to be followed.
A further sin in this particular thread was that, when getting an edit conflict note from P123ct1's edit, I simply copied my initially planned edit and, without taking the new edit content into account, stuck with the same text. I hope none of you does the same. Gregkaye✍♪17:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)"
I plan to revert to similar to the above but please edit this to your preference. PS. I was never a Catholic but think that one clear way to indicate good practice is in admission of bad practice. Gregkaye✍♪06:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Have changed "do" to "does" in the last line, though they won't remember what happened and if they did it would have barely registered, so I don't think you need to explain. The notes "Comments removed by agreement", perhaps adding "(edit conflict)", would be enough, IMO, but go ahead. :) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
NP and thanks. I'm just working on a proposal "To [b] or not to be - a qualification to Wikipedia's endorsement of ISIL as jihadist" at the moment Gregkaye✍♪10:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Re: "Comments removed by agreement" and "(edit conflict)" I don't mind which wording was used. My prose often lack the current lucidness of the text and am happy to leave further changes to you. I'll also add a note for Worldedixor to again give thanks (sounding religious again) for support and that I have been more than happy with the minimal and open tinkering with and correcting of my texts by P123ct1. There is a high level of trust here. I have recently un-collapsed a text, changed titles and things like that. Gregkaye✍♪10:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: When have I altered your text apart from this time, Greg? I can remember another time in a note directing readers to another discussion, but I have never changed your comments elsewhere, and I have certainly never changed anyone else's. This was a big exception, to clean up the confusion we had in our exchange in that thread, and it was done with your agreement. Please get back to me on this. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye Don't know how I managed to overlook the ninth comment back! Of course I removed it, but told you why and to restore, which you did. No attempt to deceive you. I know my Talk page is being scrutinized now and a dossier being kept, lol! Technophant informed. No comment expected, Greg. :) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I was not sure who was altering section headers so I used a nifty tool called Wikipedia:WikiBlame which is usually used to help to find copyright violation but is also useful for other things.
Long exchange (no comments removed)
With this edit you are going around it the wrong way. The correct and accepted way is leave the header alone:
their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality
Then just under the header add:
:''See also [[Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Logical Order in Lead|Logical Order in Lead]]''
:''See also [[Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#The word "jihad", criticism and disruption|The word "jihad", criticism and disruption]]''
to the top of the section. There is no need to show the page name and when the section gets archived all that needs adding is
:''See also [[Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive num#The word "jihad", criticism and disruption|The word "jihad", criticism and disruption]]''
To the headers. This is not a novel idea and you will see it in many places on Wikipedia talk pages, when an editor wants to link to an older conversation. -- PBS (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
@PBS: Thank you very much. While I was blundering around with the headings I was looking for help - I even asked the VPTHD as I couldn't understand the WP Help on this, but didn't get a very useful answer. I was trying to get the links on the same line as the heading so that they would show up in the TOC, which would make it easier for editors to scan for related discussion, but ended up with confusing title headings on the TOC which cancelled out the very help I was trying to give. I will sort out my horrors now I know what to do. I am surprised you could use the Wikiblame tool. I used to use it a lot and then it seemed to be broken. Perhaps it has been repaired now, which is good because it is a very useful tool, after Hedonil's, which has not worked for some time for maintenance reasons, I understand, though I have not checked lately.
PS Bring back Reflinks! Its replacement is nowhere near as good, as it only fills in some of the parameters. I know about the dispute over Reflinks, and it doesn't look very hopeful that it will return. :( ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
(I wish all "blundering" could be as effective to leave serviceable and in some ways advantageous results. It's interesting to hear that it isn't a novel idea and, who knows, if Wikipedia were to be rethought a related system might even be institutionalised. (A system that gave access to see also information in [related threads]/[related topics] drop down menus in the TOC might bring out the best from both worlds). Gregkaye✍♪05:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC))
@PBS: I have rectified all the links between discussions following your format, but there is one link that will not work and I cannot see my mistake. The link is TOC discussion #3, their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality”. The two related discussions are #4 Logical Order in Lead and #12, The word “jihad”, criticism and disruption, and clicking on "their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality” beneath them does not work. Can you help, please? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
One last point. If you add such hat-notes and another editor complains that edit was made out of order and was not signed -- This will happen occasionally -- then just move the see also lines down to the current bottom of the section and sign the edit, as it is better to do that than get into pointless arguments over the format of a talk page section. -- PBS (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: Have solved the problem! It was to do with "curly"/"straight" quote marks in the title. I knew "curly" quote marks can cause problems, but never thought of this until just now. I usually associate this problem with footnotes. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
The hatnotes are much better, but please do not put jump forwards at the top of sections but only jump backs. I think it is very confusing to have jump forwards at the top of sections, because people are expecting older comments to be at the top of a section, so how can an old comment at the top anticipate a new section lower down the page? As I said confusing! However if as you have done in one place, you want to include at the bottom of a section information indicating that the conversation continues lower down in a new section, I think that is fine.
Also on reviewing what you are doing, it will be better if you put "Archive n:" into the visible part of link to a section if a section is archived otherwise editors may be tempted to start to add comments into the section not realising it is a section in an archive. PBS (talk) -- 16:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
P123ct1:Thanks for all your responses. I don't think we have fallen out... although I did once try to boss you about with my "righteous" instruction instruction about talk page management etc... and got rightly burnt for the trouble. :) feeling a bit strung out was I at the time but that's no excuse. I am really grateful that you stuck in, remained yourself but were willing to take the time to hear me out. After that, I honestly don't care about the disagreements. Gregkaye✍♪22:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
PBS: Only a few of the linked discussions are consecutive. They can run in parallel with considerable overlap even though one may begin before another. This is why your point never occurred to me, but I understand what you mean. This is also why a couple of them, or at least in one because I did it, have a note at the end of the thread saying please stop commenting here and continue in the linked discussion (with name). Surely it would help editors to know about all the discussions there might be on a topic? Leaving it to the end of the thread to tell them is not as helpful, I think. Perhaps each link underneath the main heading could indicate whether it is "earlier" or "later" discussion. If I can think of a short way of doing that I could add it. I take your point about adding "archive "n"". ~ P123ct1 (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could help me rewrite this article. It includes an event around new year 2013 that seems to be the spark that ignited this current conflict into what it is, however it isn't written well at all. There's also poor coverage of these events in the Timeline and complete absence of these events in the ISIL article.~Technophant (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I can knock it into shape by rewriting badly-written passages and cleaning up syntax, grammar, etc, if that is what you mean? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
The account in the Lead is a horrendous muddle, going by the citation appended. It will have to be completely rewritten. I am surprised no-one has done this before. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I perhaps at the time there wasn't foreknowledge as to what these events would lead to. Best to put article comments on article talk page.~Technophant (talk) 10:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't looking at it with hindsight, I was just comparing the Lead with the citation, and it misrepresented it woefully. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 3 November
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
@P123ct1: What were your reasons for supporting the removal of timeline content from ISIL? Mine were only the length of the content and that it wasn't within the history section. Just a thought. Gregkaye✍♪21:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
@Gregkaye: It just seemed logical that as there was a separate timeline article there was no need to duplicate parts of it in this article. I have always thought that. If it has to stay, it will have to be at the end, as after the history section would mess up the article. Not very satisfactory I know.
I was wondering whether it would be possible to get a limited content from timeline at the end of history and to make notable members as a stand alone section. Even 0 - ~30 days might work rather than ~30 - ~60 days. I've mentioned this on the talk page. Gregkaye✍♪22:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
@Gregkaye: I think having "Notable members" as a standalone would be a good idea. Where could it go? Even ~30 days would unbalance the page, I think, and it would push "Criticism" down again. One reason why I moved the appendix-like section on "Support" and "Opponents" to the end was so that "Criticism" would rise higher. Though it was discussed on the Talk page I am waiting for someone to revert that bold move! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I think we need a significant criticism content in the lead. I think a timeline content might go well in history. My ideal would be 7 days but 0 - 30 averages at ~2 weeks Gregkaye✍♪22:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
@Gregkaye:I don't mind much one way or the other, really. But I agree there needs to be more criticism in the Lead, at the end. I have said so on the Talk page. You realize this will be interpreted as tag-teaming, don't you? Ridiculous, but any ammunition will do for our friend. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I moved the onlyinclude tag, now there's about 15 days of material. Almost all of the citations put into the timeline are bare urls with no titles. I haven't taken a look to see who is doing it.~Technophant (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Lists
How do you make an indented list, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc? MoS on lists says uses #, but when I do that, they all come out as "1.", "1.", "1.", etc. I asked at the Help Desk and they said the same, use "#". Is there something wrong at my end? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Technophant Thanks. I was trying to convert the "History of names" from a bulleted list to a numbered list and it wouldn't work there, but I have found a way to do it at last. It worked when I made my own list. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I hope you were able to figure out your problem. It's hard without being able to see what's on your screen. There's a remote desktop software program I've used to help people remotely with computer problem called Teamviewer. It's free to download and install at their website, (use the full install). It's safe, secure, reliable and trusted by millions of personal and professional user. I recommend that you look into installing you can accept remote assistance requests.~Technophant (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Technophant That is a very good tip, thanks. I have used the Village Pump technical help desk for problems like this before (usually much more complicated ones than this) and it is sometimes very difficult describing in words for them what is on the screen and what I have done or attempted. I am not very computer-literate but by trial and error and sheer persistence I usually get there in the end! For example, when the Help Desk said they suspected I had started a new line each time, I tried running all the text together into a block, saving it, then splitting it up back into paras with the code for the numbering and it worked! I have taught myself how to use lots of new software programs as they evolved over the years, but wikitext still baffles me. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Any chance that you can alter your edit on talk:ISIL at 15:57, 9 November 2014 from "editors wish to retain the word unqualified" to "editors so far wish to retain the word unqualified" or something similar. I really feel that !voting has been blocked and harried at various points and that it may need opportunities. I often use the phrase not wanting to close the discussion but any such text is up to you. Gregkaye✍♪13:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Long exchange (no comments removed)
Also I think that the above relates to Technophant's accusation that I was going to other parent despite the fact that we had previous dealings with PBS and s/he had initiated with another admin. Whether you want to comment on this is up to you Gregkaye✍♪13:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: Of course. I did wonder if I was being too final about it. :( I am not sure how "other parent" relates to this. How can PBS be other parent? I am not in on T's latest moves - for example, the RfC/U came out of the blue, we had never talked about it, so I was surprised at being appointed proxy. His wikibreak also came as a complete surprise and he is now uncontactable. I cannot understand why he is considered a sock-puppet, as he never made any secret of his new account on his userpage (I have known about it for a very long time just from there), so the admins must also have known about it. I don't understand how WP operates on many things. :( ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments on the RfC/U page. Thanks. :) ~ P123ct1 (talk)
I also find the other parent comments quite curious for amongst other reasons that I'm 45. Bonfire boy(e)s come in all ages and, unless they are part of the Waterloo,we wunt be druv[2] :)
Re:T (s)he is considered to have used sock puppets which is something that, even going through the most recent archive, is something that (s)he has been in and out of bans with for some time. My RfC/U comments were just a straightforward presentation of facts as I have seen them and, as with other editors, only go as far as to comment on content that I have seen. If it had been up to me I would have awarded you a peacekeeping barnstar (or whatever its called) quite some time ago due to your notable and appreciated efforts towards what may have been an impossible goal. Such an award would have clearly overstretched boundaries related to potential issues of conflict of interest and its easier to give awards to people when situations are neutral or negative than to engage in the conceit of giving awards to those with whom you happen to share a level of agreement. (graphics being absent you should still consider yourself awarded) :)
Gregkaye TY! The COIs I have found hardest to handle (not have) are loyalties and, even more, our clash over NPOV. I sometimes say things on the Talk page I know you won't like but I have to be true to my convictions as you are to yours (this hardly needs saying as I know you understand). What do you mean by your RfC/U? Did you mean AN/I? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately there are plenty of things that may need saying. I was trying to say "RfC/U comments", those that you had previously referred to. This, I think, just gives further demonstration as to why the ISIL page needs a copy ed. :) Gregkaye✍♪15:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
:D. Yes, I mostly copy-edit on this page, which is why my edit count is so embarrassingly high (I have contributed very little in terms of new content), and would never want to be an admin. :( ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
@Gregkaye: I couldn't handle the stress of dealing with the kind of problems admins have to deal with. I find the various disciplinary procedures very unpleasant to watch or be involved in, esp your AN/I, WE's topic ban, WE's RfC/U and T's attempted PBS RfC/U. Btw, liked your we wunt be druv reference, didn't know Sussex people had that reputation. You are certainly an excellent example! ;) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
In the phrases "bear pit" and "snake pit" I think that "pit" can also be a problem. In the context of a level playing field and fair action genuine problems are sometimes best dealt with in fair and direct ways. Ironically it may have been my recent interventions that may have taken the fight out of Worldedixor. There is a mentality that some people have where they want to see themselves as the set upon fighter and will prefer to focus on any other subject presented rather than face up to some genuine home truths. I'm pleased about what I said because, whether s/he comes back or not, I think s/he now has a better chance to face up to his/her own issues.
I say "genuine problems are sometimes best dealt with in fair and direct ways". I would have said always but, if it were not for [[User:Technophant|Technophant]'s thankfully, and I use the words deliberately, "badgering" and "lynching" tactics with "vindictive" appearance which I think were used with tactical intent, I would have happily continued to have gone down as a martyr for the cause of a fair representation of jihad. If it was not for what I saw as actions brought, to borrow a valid phrase, "with unclean hands" I would have continued with my planned route and would have been, to borrow another relevant phrase, "out of here". I am still open to the idea that actions may have been driven by unconscious drives but this does not make them any less wrong. I have long theorised that the campaigns were partly driven within Technophant's preference to remove opposition to his own, he/she taught me the phrase, tendentious editing. However, I could not really share my views because I neither knew the facts or the rules. I try not to speak out of turn about people until I know what I'm saying and, at the time around the beginning of my AN/I, this was my most difficult time.. lately. I was bullied about three decades ago - honestly I'm not still affected, lol - and vowed that it would never happen again. In my work I will continue to ping Technophant partly as it may seem rude to reply to others and not to him/her in topics started. My hope is that both Worldedixor and Technophant can learn relevant lessons from recent experiences. As is my habit I will leave it to you to decide whether to complete the ping above. Gregkaye✍♪11:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
@Gregkaye:I won't add to the ping as Technophant already knows my views about these disciplinary procedures. He doesn't seem to have strong preferences in his editing – he tends to edit on the technical side and doesn't contribute so much to the contentious editing, mainly I think because he feels he hasn't followed the sometimes labyrinthine discussions enough to get involved, owing to his taking time off quite a lot while recovering from the major back surgery, but I could be wrong. I will continue to defend you both, each to the other! As for the different warnings, etc, to you I could not comment, except that I know he once did vandal patrol for a long time and is very used to issuing warnings, so maybe it is a carry-over from that. I have no idea when he will be back, or what will happen to the RfC/U on PBS when he does! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Good for you. Peace is a VERY relevant goal. I'd encourage you both to keep WP related conversation to the talk page though as possible. I think that this is another aspect of fair practice that he should consider. Gregkaye✍♪12:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
@Gregkaye: When I said I couldn't comment I meant that literally, I just don't know why he has issued those warnings or been the way he has been. We don't concoct ways of dealing with this or that, I leave that to him, and we don't discuss edits the way you and I do, that is done on our Talk pages or on the main Talk page. We are both very aware of the "tag-teaming" slur that could be cast on that. In fact, he is quite taciturn in our emails; I am the one who is voluble. The solutions to problems (even when I can't see a problem) he comes up with are not discussed beforehand, they are always unilateral and always a surprise. "Out of the blue" is an apt phrase. Otherwise we talk about WP in very general terms. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Widr: I found this file when cleaning up my userpages and removed it. I cannot remember why I put it there, but I do remember I never intended to do anything with it. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Widr: By file I meant the article. I did not edit anything in it, so I don't understand what is meant by "one or more of your recent contributions". As I said, I cannot remember why I put it on my userpage. There was a citation from this magazine that went into the ISIS article, but that is all I can remember. I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing. Have I done something wrong? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not a big deal. You blanked the article without giving a valid reason in the edit summary. That's why you got the warning. No harm done. We all learn as we go along here. Happy editing. Widr (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking of starting a thread regarding the last para of the lead with a first write up to follow my signature. Please feel free to change wording or otherwise make suggestions. Thanks. Gregkaye✍♪20:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Long exchange (no comments removed)
Suggestion for last paragraph
Please take a look at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Criticism. Most of the criticism is from the Muslim community and most of that is critical of the groups faithfulness to Islam.
I propose that the last paragraph of the lead can read:
The group has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, the UAE and Israel. The United Nations and Amnesty International have accused the group of grave human rights abuses, and Amnesty International has found it guilty of ethnic cleansing on a "historic scale". The group's actions, have been widely criticized around the world with many voices in Islamic communities variously describing the group as not representing Islam.
That final section could equally read: "... variously describing the group as "Un-Islamic"".
"The group's actions have been widely criticized around the world with many Islamic communities describing the group as not representing Islam."
But you may have a reason for "variously"? I think "not representing Islam" is clearer for readers than "Un-Islamic". This will be different from the consensus decision on the wording some time ago, of course, but I don't see why you shouldn't reopen this. At least you're putting it on the Talk page first! :) I think this detail is better than "notably within the Muslim community", which is a bit bland and doesn't say much, does it?
Re the additions to "Criticism", I cut out a few words as Reuters reports the Grand Mufti's quote as being only about the Islamic State and al-Qaeda, not other militants, and I put Ban Ki-Moon's name as "author=" without splitting it since it isn't clear which is his surname and which his first name. I was told by an editor once it was best to put the name in full without splitting it when the names are from those parts of the world where surname can come first and if it is unclear. I am not sure about Ban Ki-Moon, so safest not to split it. (Though I notice the wiki article on him calls him "Ban" suggesting that is his surname, but hope the article is correct. As I say, when in doubt, don't split it.) The Grand Mufti citation does not have an "author", it just says "Reuters", and when there is no author it is okay to skip that parameter. I know it was the Grand Mufti's words, but it is Reuters' report of them, and no journalist for the report is named. Well done for checking his name for the wikilink - what a mouthful! Otherwise you have got the hang of the cite templates now. :) Even some of the regular editors don't bother and leave bare URLs. :(
I added the fifth diff to the Edit-Warring Noticeboard post as I thought you may have missed it by accident, but didn't alter anything else. Haven't checked to see the result there yet. Have you seen T's email to Brangifer on his T page! Well deserved, IMO. (I am the "friend".) Hope Signedzzz doesn't reappear this evening. =( ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for all. So you think that "The group's actions, have been widely criticized around the world with many voices in Islamic communities describing the group as not representing Islam." Is better? Gregkaye✍♪06:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think "many voices" is needed, just "... around the world with many Islamic communities describing the group as not representing Islam". I am not sure that "many voices" really adds anything. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: I forgot to ping you for "I don't think many ...", but the last message "You see this?" isn't mine; the Revision History shows it is from Legacypac. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Your intent here?
Do you have any constructive comments on the revised order or will you stick to assuming bad faith (yet again) and disparaging me and my efforts to improve the article? I'm here to build a better encyclopedia, not sure why you seem to want to fight. Legacypac (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
No, Legacypac, I believe your reorganisation was done in good faith, but it seemed to me to oppose some basic things in Wikipedia, discussion of major edits before they are made and broadbrush consensus agreement. This is what happened the last time there was a wholesale revision of the ordering. Please don't assume that the motive behind my criticisms is to pick a fight. You have worked hard on this article and made a lot of improvements, but I just wish you could have taken editors' views more into account this time. I assume and hope you will not resist any criticism of it. We clash on the way we see things in WP editing and it is unfortunate that lately it has made us both believe the worst of each other. I hope this can stop now. I don't have any criticism of the new ordering as you will probably be pleased to hear I am beginning to lose interest in editing the ISIS page, but at first glance it looks fine. On the other matter, let me add that collapsing has always bothered me, whoever does it, for the reason I gave on PBS's Talk page. I would have said what I did whoever the editor was. Can we call a truce on the unpleasantness now that we understand each other a little better, I hope? We used to get along, whatever happened to that? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough - I think we have an understanding. Thank-you. Would you please comment on the talk page about the reorg itself rather then the process. It will go along way toward helping build a positive environment there. Legacypac (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I really want to ask about the flouts yet again and where the previous occurrences may have been. The only thing that I can think of is "Diktats". This is one of a few possible words that may be applied but which describes the situation under the administration really well. I certainly don't see any flouting involved. I feel it unfair to apply yet again kind of terminologies to some references which are not specified and which I am at a loss to know what they are.
It seems to me that you, as you are entitled to do, will make your judgement on an acceptable level of action and then anything beyond this becomes infringement. A related case relates to the moving up the page of the terrorist organisation designation reference and my simultaneous consideration of putting a similar reference into the infobox status field which, at the time, was filled with an otherwise unused piece of terminology. My main objection was to the previous unsubstantiated content and, in this context, I proposed the only thing that I knew was cited by high level sources.
Are there other issues that you are thinking of?
In the current situation the actual content of the section named "Criticisms" has remarkably little connection to the actual content of "Group characteristics and structure" and I see no valid relational reason to say that one section should follow another and, after that, its just different editors POVs. I've written up my reasonings on this on the page and won't repeat them here. The only related content in WP:BODY is that "The usual practice is to name and order sections based on the precedent of some article which seems similar" and I understand this to relate to time sequence. If this has any tenuous relationship to the criticisms content then its fair to note that this is the content that I believe has been broadcast first and people will hear first. 09:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Edited with section title change Gregkaye✍♪07:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye I have long thought this article flouts WP:NPOV at every turn in the Lead and infoboxes but never said that much about it, but when I did was vociferous, as the Talk pages will show. Search "NPOV" and you will find those instance, not difficult as most editors are now not much interested in this principle. I can think of a few editors who I suspect have left because of it. I have lost interest in the article because of it. Gazkthul and I are the only editors left who defend NPOV. The reorganization is the last straw. Those are my opinions and they will not change. The article to me is now a lost cause. I will continue to copy-ed but not join discussion on the Talk page. Also, I am very weary of all the fighting that goes on, over every little thing, including in our exchanges lately. This not the way editing the article was in June-July and like T. I find the way it is now, in every sense, depressing. ~ ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
And I don't like the moral upbraiding. It is uncalled for.
Direct communication what is called for. You haven't said that you think the article flouts NPOV. You haven't said how.
As far as I can see the POV always seems to go one way. People are quick to fairly say that you can't say murder or terrorist. The issue on execution was only raised by chance through a conversation that we were both party to with PBS on footnotes. On the topic of footnotes editors go into full derailment and wall of text mode to stop one being put on "jihadism". NPOV should be a two way street.
I've looked through the NPOV refs on the talk page and through the last few archives. One other comment still on the page that I thought was of note was HammerFilmFan's, "NPOV doesn't mean being stupid in editorial policy. For example, the general tone of any article on Nazi atrocities can hardly be "neutral" in the terms you like to see because that would neither faithfully represent the issue, nor reflect what RS's say about it. This group is committing atrocities - crimes against humanity. "NPOV" should not be carried to ridiculous extremes." We have to present facts and attach due importance to them and on this I honestly don't think that you have an NPOV.
NPOV is an issue that you have cited as being a difference between us. You say that you think that the article flouts NPOV. I have asked how? I don't think it fair to drop in "yet again" type comments without justification. Also if there is a difference it is fair to know how it is defined. Gregkaye✍♪12:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye I am not going to sift through and repeat my comments on NPOV on the Talk page. They are there to be seen and are fully explained. I thought I had explained my NPOV objection to the reorganisation. An encylopaedia has to be neutral. i.e. show N-P-O-V, and putting "Criticisms" first and labeling them as such does not show N-P-O-V. "Criticism" as a heading shows an attitude of mind, not a neutral stance. Your constant pushing to have "jihadist" qualified is POV-pushing, as the majority if not all editors agree. Your pressing for the Islamic criticism being the first thing that is mentioned after the first sentence in the Lead is POV-pushing. The repeated "selfs-" and refusal to call a fact a fact shows POV. To report a criticism as in "X criticized Y in this way ..." shows NPOV, but a stream of criticism and qualification of facts presented in WP's own voice does not.. I can't explain it any more clearly. I have said these things so often before but you always seemed to show WP:IDHT and didn't seem to want to understand what NPOV is. At first I thought it was willful misunderstanding, but now I believe it is genuine. But this is academic now as I do not intend to contribute further to the page/Talk page except with copy-eds. I will keep my opinions to myself from now on and not put them on the Talk page as they seem to be so offensive and I don't like the flak that follows for anyone who dares to speak their mind. Gazkthul has said on the Talk page that the article is too full of criticism and POV, and he is a very experienced editor. I can see what is happening to this article and it is so against what I believe what WP as an encyclopaedia should be that I cannot with integrity take part in editing it any more, except with copy-eds. I make no criticism of Legacypac having read a comment he subsequently made about putting criticism first in his reorganization, btw.
And I will not be browbeaten by you in the way you have tried to browbeat other editors into behaving as you think they should behave, and I find your weasel words accusation more than insulting. I am very tolerant but can only be pushed so far.
You have said that you think the article flouts NPOV. You haven't said how. Your comment did not relate to the talk page and remains unjustified. Your comment was "... is not neutral, as an encylopaedia article should be and it flouts WP:NPOV, yet again, IMO." It was this that I questioned. In relation to other issues raised: "Criticism" is a very accurate and neutrally described description of that section. Individuals, groups and nations have been critical. They looked at a group that were displaying the behaviours of the group called "ISIL" and they, to a large extent, condemned. We described the section as criticism. What would you call it? There is fair reporting. To report a criticism as in "X criticized Y in this way ..." is to report that "X criticized Y in this way ...". Things happened. We reflect what happened. I don't think you have anywhere near NPOV on this. Censorship is an important topic to you. Before you archive this content please consider related issues.
What has the "jihadism" issue got to do with this. Please remember your expressed view here and in many texts at the time. There is nothing regarding POV about wanting to present readers with neutral information on meanings of words.
As I have said many times in many ways I am more than happy for you to speak your mind. As expressed, I do not think that your content, "... is not neutral, as an encylopaedia article should be and it flouts WP:NPOV, yet again, IMO" was fair. I agree that an encyclopedia should be NPOV. You have said that you think the article flouts NPOV. You haven't said how. I am also asking a question because I want to understand. I also do not want to be in discussion when you may quote phantom POV contents in the article and not be able to say what they are. Gregkaye✍♪ 14:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC
Read again and you will find I have answered all those points, here and on the Talk page. Linking the template is very optimistic. Despite adding the template to the Talk page in both articles recently, the bare URL count in both articles is today the highest it has ever been, as I noted on #Talk page/Footnotes. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
By raising this topic here I have done you the favour and I do not begrudge the fact that, without a withdrawal, I have allowed you to get your words in first. In a less friendly dispute this would not happen. I am adding related content to the talk page that is certainly warranted but have certainly held back in what I have said.
My sincere view is that you are POV pushing but we both know where we both stand on this. I am open to a continuation of this or similar dialogues but also recognise the option that we agree to differ. Gregkaye✍♪18:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, but you are entitled to your view. Why are you so disputacious? I can't even understand what you mean in your last message. Why are you so sensitive about what I think? I am not interested in more dialogue. Say what you like on the Talk page and don't hold back; I never have done in recent months. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
All I have done here is to give you notification of a talk page content that I found questionable and I put this in a the context of my perspectives of recent article situations. Through the resulting discussion, all we really achieved was that we ran through our individual perspectives of POV. Hopefully this discussion has also facilitated a more cordial exchange on the talk page than may otherwise have been facilitated. I am quite happy in situations where I don't hold back, at least in terms of forceful argument, on talk pages. There have been a number of times that you have been unhappy on Wikipedia about the way that things have been said. Gregkaye✍♪18:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Largely in defence of others, you may remember. I have quoted WP:CIVIL several times at editors who have been discourteous to others, once in your defence. WE was the big exception, when I couldn't take any more harassment. I sincerely believe now that before the RfC/U he did not see it as harassment, which casts a whole new light on that episode. His sense of grievance was very real, and I have some sympathy for it now. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
not ignoring what you said but You asked me a question earlier "Why are you so sensitive about what I think?" which at the time I paid little mid to. I can honestly say that I don't generally give a fuck what people think about me and, for better or worse, that is how I have been for a very long time. However, when I was going through my AN/I you made some incredibly meaningful initiatives to me. I had been in contact with a couple of editors to touch base on a few situations but, at that time, my only real meaningful contact here was with you and I don't know if you know how much that meant to me. It was and is very deeply appreciated and, beyond the fact that we both know that we won't compromise with each other, you are very special to me. I make efforts to keep, get peace with several editors but I feel an extra motivation to get, keep things right with you. There are times that I don't agree with all you say but your words are meaningful to me. As you know, have stood up on your behalf in a number of situations and in a number of interventions and appreciate that, on a number of occasions, I have been under "your wing". You have an integrity here and that is not a quality shared by all. I will continue to think about whether sensitive is the right word. I have always been sensitive to the issues of others but have not often considered the same about myself. Gregkaye✍♪20:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
TY. I hadn't thought of that. Our "professional" disagreements have always paled into insignificance for me compared to the rest of it, but I do get impatient sometimes. I didn't like to see you embattled and attacked for your great "sins" as they were made out to be in the AN/I, and I always try to help where I can when people are in difficulty. Let us keep the peace. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if peace is totally an option. I think we may both be too strong willed for that . I still stick by my evoking phantoms comment above and I know that there are things that you stick to as well. All the same I'll try to keep overt conflict away from article talk. You know that if there is something I disagree with I will speak my mind. I have come to expect the same from you. A "backlash" isn't always a bad thing. Gregkaye✍♪21:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
There will never be peace over our difference of views, but we managed to keep the peace on our TPs. That is what I meant. Please be forthright with me on the ISIS Talk page, I don't mind overt conflict and will not rise to any criticism. I wish editors did hit back more - Legacy is the only one who has done and we patched up our differences once we both knew it was not personal. You and I are indeed both very strong-willed so there was bound to be a big clash.sooner or later. I think we are more similar than first meets the eye in other ways, too. I particularly like your independent spirit, which I share. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Sigh* I will take your advice. Six hours ago the diktats thread got archived and I missed the chance to give fair comment on your POV push by editors such as yourself and Gazkthul to use less than descriptive content. Please see Encyclopedia. It is exactly our job to call a spade a spade. Please see Spade. Please see comments made regarding headings descriptions at Talk:ISIL#Article Section Reorg - from 14 top level headings to 6... which I see you have. I have changed the heading title here to reflect the change from a discussion on a specific issue to that of the more general concept later discussed. Maybe I am soft to do this. Your weasel word statement remains. Gregkaye✍♪07:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Most recently it was diktats which gives good description to a large portion if not all of the content of the text. I think that there was something else further back. Most immediately even to your cautions regarding the use of "Criticism" a word which is already far towards the passive side of NPOV. Gregkaye✍♪08:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Have you seen the move of the "Countries and groups at war with ISIL" section. I left a 10:03, 25 November 2014 comment on the article talk page.
I'd also be interested in any suggestions regarding a wording such as, ""Jihadism has become an ideological descriptor in the English speaking world and no religious sanction is implied in it's use throughout this article." I will follow Technophant's badly timed suggestion to take the issue to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. PBS' comments on my talk page at 13:17, 14 November 2014 in regard to the [b] thread included: "there is clearly bad faith between editors involved in the exchange." Gregkaye✍♪10:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how you would broach this in mediation. I can see what that wording is driving at, but I think the sentence (I don't think you came up with it, did you?) is badly written and needs to be made more precise. It is too obscure. Is this wording to go in an efn footnote attached to "jihadist"? The wikilink for "jihadsim" is useless for this purpose, IMO; it has just one vague sentence on the difference between the way modern media use the word and its true meaning for Islam. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Name change for Islamic State article
As you know, there is a moratorium on discussing name changes for this article. I just wanted to ask what will happen once the moratorium ends, and if I am unable to voice my opinion when the time comes. StanMan87 (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Apologies, I thought you knew as you were the one who brought it to my attention that a moratorium on name changes existed. I'll post this message in the talk page. StanMan87 (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Hebrew Israel citation/Israel inclusion
True to form the Israel cell in the table for terrorist organizations is already populated with three citations. I remember from a certain RfC that a certain editor had previously pushed regarding the validity of foreign language citations.
Long exchange (no comments removed)
I know that you also expressed views on this. After a lot of largely fruitless searching in Hebrew, this was the best reference that I could find. I think that the citations on Israel are already gratuitously overloaded. What, if anything, do you think should be done with the Hebrew citation. I am still uneasy as to whether this defines 'SIL as terrorist. The word טרור (<r-oh-r-t<) doesn't appear once and the wording used (בלתי מותרת של ארגון) means >not>allowed>of>organization>. Sources translate as Unlawful organisation but I would translate prohibited. I have seen an Israeli gov page that talks of Terrorism and the use of unlawful type designations to sanction attacks but haven't found any related listing of groups. However, the Hebrew language has a description for terrorist organisations (he:ארגון_טרור - ergoon terohr) and I'm sure that, if they wanted to specifically designate the group as terrorist, they would have. As I'm writing I'm thinking more that it may be good to propose removal from the list and to perhaps add a footnote or a written note following the main table to present the Israeli info. I really came to ask about citations but all thoughts welcome.
I also think that the Indonesian entry is more than a little suspect. Gregkaye✍♪15:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
There is no need to be paranoid. Search the archived Talk pages for long discussions on this under "Israel", "Israel (2)" and "Israel (3)". The Israeli government does not use "terrorist designation", their word for it is "unlawful". One citation shows the official Israeli government's designation, using "unlawful". But the Arabic citation shows the Israel government has indeed designated them as a terrorist organization. I hsd to get an independent WP translation of that Arabic citation (translated by WE) to prove it (and he was right). I have just put quote marks round the words I added beside that citation with a note to show that it is a translation. (See also my archived Talk page under "Translation".) (I see my archives have suddenly disappeared. I have no idea how that happened. Someone must have refactored them.) If you want to dispute and undo a carefully thought-out edit, that is up to you. I will not revert what you do, but some editor may at some stage. On your edit in "Analysis" please note my edit summary. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll just read the second link. Thanks. I am kind of wondering how reliable a source elfagr.org/ are. I know that I am just going by site appearance here. With a lot of searching I could not find a reverence to a Hebrew designation of the group as terrorist. I've been thinking about this while out and about and I think that this may be a POV spin by the Arabic source. I don't think that there would have been an Israeli designation as terrorist that was retracted and there is no mention of it on any of the related Wikipedia pages in Hebrew. Gregkaye✍♪17:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
See third para down in Jewish source cited (third one, JP Updates). The discussion on the Talk pages was a lot of hot air as editors kept getting hold of the wrong end of the stick re the citations then being provided. That is why I had to investigate it myself, on their behalf, first at WP:RSN mentioned here, got nowhere there, then get the Arabic translation, then put in those three citations to back up the designation. It was a lot of hard work. The RSN was useless, as Legacypac also discovered when he found proper citations for the United Nations terrorist designation. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The first part of the Talk page discussion on the citations put forward for this designation is under two headings - click on "Israel" for the TOC headings - here. You can look at those citations provided there. I listed them all at the RSN, ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Its strange because I've searched in a few ways on the Yedioth Ahronoth site, for instance on the first and last names of the guy that was meant to be speaking and on terms like Daas ("Islamic State" doesn't seem to be used) and terror all on 3rd September when the report was meant to be made and have done other searches as well. I found nothing which is odd. (This is just reporting to say things have been done. Its not a request). I did lots of other searching as well and nothing came up. In other news searches I have found nothing on Israel calling the group terrorist but only found that one official document. The western media reported that Israel had called the group unlawful and as just the Arabic source said they called them terrorist, I think that the Arabic source is probably sensationalising or something. In this case we can go back to an original document which contradicts secondary sources. Gregkaye✍♪20:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
also on the talk page I wrote a comment about "If the WP:LEAD is to reflect article content then this should reflect content that states.. "which I put in the wrong section and you rightly saie what? Is it ok to move it? Gregkaye✍♪20:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye Of course, and cut out my "what" comment if you like. What about the Jewish JP Updates citation, where it mentions "terrorist"? You obviously won't find anything if you use "terrorist" as a search word, as the Israeli government uses "unlawful" to designate groups as terrorist and do not use the word "terrorist" in designations the way other countries do. I have said that already, I think, or it may have cropped up on the Talk page. Search using "unlawful" and it may be more fruitful. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I've searched quite a wide range of terms but not all of them specifically on that site. The thing is that the Israelis used a term other than terrorism. The Arabic press said they designated terrorist but that wasn't so. Gregkaye✍♪20:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I really think you are seeing a distinction where there is none, and that it is just the term used for it that is different. Try and see how the Israeli government classifies other terrorist groups. I bet it uses the word "unlawful". Try looking as Israel's designation of Hamas as a terrorist group, for example (see wiki article on Hamas). ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I am open to the idea that I am just being anal about this. The Hebrew language has words for terror and it has words for unlawful. It may well be that Israel does not call designate any group with use of the otherwise commonly used Hebrew terminology for terror. I think that, if they don't wikt:designate groups as "terrorist", we should not put words in their mouths that they have chosen not to use. Gregkaye✍♪20:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
How objective will they be? Have you any Jewish acquaintances who might shed some light on this, lawyers, for example? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
And I didn't mean wiki will be accurate, just that its footnotes might provide a lead. Try doing the same for all "terrorist designations", so-called by wiki, by Israel for various groups like Hamas. Wiki must show quite a number of Israeli designations for terrorist groups. I suspect this apparent difference may just stem from a Hebrew legal language translation difficulty. If it idoes, splitting hairs over the wording in WP seems unnecessary to me. If you find the Israeli government uses "unlawful" for other terrorist designations, there is no point quibbling over terminology in this article, I think. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye You could always use the WP translation service to translate the Hebrew citations I listed, or any others you may come across. That may help. The link for that is WP:HDhere. Don't trust Google Translate, they're rubbish. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Many governments around the world may have talked about a wide range of organisations that are variously listed at List of designated terrorist organizations. However not all governments are on this list and for good reason. They have not themselves designated these organisations to be terrorist. Israel, from all Hebrew texts that I have so far taken my basic steps through, has not designated Daesh, as they tend to designate them, by terrorist type terminologies.
Israel has ten times issued a "הכרזה כארגון טרור לפי פקודת מניעת טרור" Declaration as a terrorist organization by the Command of preventing terror. I counted ten groups on the list and they included PLO, Fatah, Hamas, Palestine al-muslima, Palestinian relief and development...
Israel has also often issued a "הכרזה על התאחדות בלתי מותרת" Declaration of an unlawful association. I estimate about 100 items and groups include:
3.9.14 דאע"ש או המדינה האסלאמית או המדינה האסלאמית בעיראק ובסוריה או החליפות האסלאמית או אלקאעדה עיראק ISLAMIC STATE או ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND SYRIA/ALSHAM/LEVEANT או ISIL/ISIS או AQI אלדולה אלאסלאמיה פי עיראק ואלשאם או אלקאעדה פי עיראק الدولة الاسلامية או الدولة الاسلامية في عراق والشام או داﻋﺶ או اﳋلافۃ الاسلامية הכרזה על התאחדות בלתי מותרת לפי תקנות ההגנה (שעת חירום) 1945 שר הביטחון - משה (בוגי) יעלון 03/09/14 Daa"s or Islamic state or an Islamic state in Iraq and Syria or Islamic caliphate or Al-Qaeda or Iraq ISLAMIC STATE ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND SYRIA / ALSHAM / LEVEANT or ISIL / ISIS or AQI Haldol Alislamiya Iraq and al-Sham according to Al-Qaeda or Iraq الدولة الاسلامية times or الدولة الاسلامية في عراق والشام or داعش or الخلافۃ الاسلامية declaration of an unlawful association under the Defense (Emergency) Regulations, 1945 Defense Minister - Moshe (Bogie) Ya'alon
I found this information by searching on "הכרזה כארגון טרור לפי פקודת מניעת טרור" and choosing the download link with partial address given by google as: www.mod.gov.il/Defence-and.../teror16.11.xls which had the title "רשימת ההכרזות - משרד הביטחון" which translates as: List of Announcements - Office of security (Ministry of Defence)
I'm really pleased to have talked with you about all this first. You asked the right questions to help me eventually dig out some relevant info.
I'm not even sure if this is something that still needs to be asked about or just notified of changes. What do you think? Gregkaye✍♪12:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye The "Israel has ten times issued..." source looks the best lead so far. If you cannot find ISIL/ISIS/IS on that list at any date, it does look as if Israel has not issued a terrorist designation for ISIL; many of the obvious ones are listed there, so why not ISIL? There is a link I gave in the RSN to a possibly helpful article here which Technophant dug it out, about future plans for terrorist listings by the Israeli government.
What do you mean by your last comment? Especially what does "just notified of changes" mean?
I have taken Indonesia off the list in the article as that designation was by the Indonesian Counterterrorism body, not by the Indonesian government itself, and the designation box is about countries/supranational bodies. Well spotted. Perhaps I should add a line under the designation box to say what Indonesia has done. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
If Israel remains in the infobox, perhaps there should be another note underneath it, saying that Israel has declared it "unlawful" or whatever the wording is. You have got me into cat sat on the mat mode now. I have a thing about misleading readers, and accuracy, so maybe that will be needed. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
TY. No reason for asking but what do you think of cats. I have always liked my sister cats but I'm allergic, even to the mats lol. Sorry not to get back quickly. Not getting your pings here &@#%. Last comment: I think the case is conclusive. I have a range of experiences with Jewish issues and am well aware that their authorities don't tend to say things in ways they don't want. This may be one of the reason why according to claim there are so many Jewish Lawyers. I think its fine just to remove the Israeli reference and present reasons why on the talk page. Gregkaye✍♪16:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: From reputation, though not experience because mine has always been good, you could be right. Did you find ISIL on that government list of 10 terrorist oganisations or not? If they are NOT on that list (can you confirm?) probably best to remove and add a note at the bottom of the designation infobox, along with a note about Indonesia. Did you see the article about the Israeli government's plans to list the organizations? I wonder how that list will be worded. ;S Sorry about pings, keep forgetting whose page I am on. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I did not get any pings except for the last one so that's WPs problem I guess. I gave a guide as to how to download the Hebrew spreadsheet and have quoted the word for word texts. 'SIL are listed on a line in the where the declaration of unlawful group is entered. Declarations of organisations of terror are quoted on other lines. Gregkaye✍♪16:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: Sorry, missed the link. Google, internet searching, lists of links, wikitext, etc I absolutely loathe, tbh, tend to glaze over whenever I see them. That link might be useful to quote in the note I suggested under the designation box. I have noticed the ping notification lists behaving erratically in the last few days. I will look at the link ~ P123ct1 (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
All Israel have effectively done is to jump through their own legal hoops going through their own legal proceedure to warrant a level of military action that they haven't taken. I think that this is a non-issue. This does not even get them onto any of the lists of state opponents and says nothing more than that the country has left its options, should they ever want to take them, open. Gregkaye✍♪17:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Beyond the table the text of the section on "Designation as a terrorist organization" states, "Many world leaders and government spokespeople have called ISIL a terrorist group..." Israel, as far as I can see, has not even done this. I think that there has been a Wikipedia storm in a tea cup pushed by some previous Arabic misrepresentation. I don't think that the information is relevant to the section. Gregkaye✍♪17:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye It was my fault, thinking the translated Arabic citation reflected the truth, when clearly it was a misreport. I was just curious to see the citation you quoted, which am now looking at. Probably best to drop the whole thing and remove Israel. Didn't realise Israel wasn't in the state opponents section, have not followed the development of that section, or the TP discussions on Israel, can only remember something about intelligence aid. If I had, maybe I would have twigged earlier. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye I see ISIL is listed no. 350 on that spreadsheet as an "unlawful" association and there are many "terrorist" designations, so proof positive the Israel has not given it a terrorist designation. Will remove Israel from infobox and Lead and leave a note on the TP, and one for the infobox later. Thanks for your careful sleuthing. Your background knowledge has helped, thanks. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm also adding a column for Israel in the article list of terrorist designations. They (Israel) hide their information, it seems to me, and I think it is important that they can be kept accountable. Gregkaye✍♪18:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: (edit conflict) The date at no.350 is the date given in two of the three citations in the infobox, including that Arabic one, 3rd September 2014. I doubt Israel has changed its mind since 3rd September. Why are you adding a column for Israel in that article, if they obviously haven't designated them as a terrorist organization? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I cannot understand why my subsequent comments after my first questions did not show up. They are in this diff here. This was the full text of my questions to you:
Gregkaye; What is your opinion on this? I cannot see [in Legacypac's refs] where it says the Agency is the creation of the government, although it does say it answers only to the President. Should Indonesia go back into the terrorist designation infobox? In the original citation (see in note re Indonesia in Terrorist Designation section) the BNPT only "says" that ISIL is "categorised" as a terrorist organization, and there is no specific date given for the statement. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I would think that the Indonesian designation should be added back IMO. The Indonesians have used it and they will have the best feel for the tone of the politics there. I don't see a reason to doubt the content in the same way as with Israel. It also fits in with other things that the gov is saying.
The Jakarta Post article is very clear to me - look at the title "Indonesia launches" refering to the state creating the "interdepartmental" National Antiterrorism Agency (BNPT). then it talks about greater authority then the police etc. "Under the aurthority of the BNPT, he said, the police would need the Army’s support in conducting its missions." suggesting BNPT can direct both the police and the army, which only an arm of the govt can do. The indonesian wikipedia has an article that says in the first sentences "National Agency for Combating Terrorism, abbreviated BNPT, is a government agency in Indonesia, which has the task of carrying out government duties in the field of counter-terrorism. BNPT headed by a chief who is responsible to the president through the Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal and Security." Legacypac (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The thing that 'SIL generally do is that they kill, persecute and take liberty from Muslims. They fight to do this. To quote the article.
Long exchange (no comments removed)
By 2014, ISIL was increasingly being viewed as a militia rather than as a terrorist group. As major Iraqi cities fell to ISIL in June 2014, Jessica Lewis, a former US army intelligence officer at the Institute for the Study of War, described ISIL as "not a terrorism problem anymore", but rather "an army on the move in Iraq and Syria, and they are taking terrain. They have shadow governments in and around Baghdad, and they have an aspirational goal to govern. I don't know whether they want to control Baghdad, or if they want to destroy the functions of the Iraqi state, but either way the outcome will be disastrous for Iraq." Lewis has called ISIL "an advanced military leadership". She said, "They have incredible command and control and they have a sophisticated reporting mechanism from the field that can relay tactics and directives up and down the line. They are well-financed, and they have big sources of manpower, not just the foreign fighters, but also prisoner escapees."
They don't tend to undertake the particular type of activity of flying aircraft into buildings and the like. Its possible that you have your words the wrong way round. Consider a revert?
In your edit summary in swapping around the criticisms section you talked about the designation as terrorist as being the general thing. The use of a particular type of designation, if anything, is particular. Far, far away from the conflict men in suits decide on uses of words. They decide to call a distant group by the name terrorist and yet it becomes apparent that the group are not primarily defined as a terrorist group. Their emphasis is not on terrorist attack. The think that 'SIL are known for is attacking, killing both fighters and prisoners. They are known for war crimes and ethnic cleansing. These are amongst the things that Muslims criticise the group for - and they also call the group terrorist. The thing that is of general importance with regard to "Islamic State..." is Islam and it is this criticism that is of central relevance. Consider a revert? Gregkaye✍♪20:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Please take a look at the TOC, It mentions a load of islam related issues. Yes there are a fes suicide bombings mentioned in the text but there is only one title related to terrorism and that's the designation. Most of the rest of the content is to do with Islam and war. The Islamic criticism part is more relevant in my view. The heading title is criticism but the content does not start with criticism. Gregkaye✍♪21:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
@Gregkaye: I am sure the men in suits who decided on these designations regarded attacking and killing fighters and prisoners and the innocent, with car bombs, suicide bombs, which this group have done for a very long time, as terrorism. That sounds like terrorist attack to me. Al-Zarqawi was notorious for this behaviour, and that goes back to 2004 at least, when the US designated the group as a terrorist organisation. What else do you think the men in suits might have meant by "terrorism"? Secondly, you are once again putting the offence to Islam above everything else in this article, which as you know I think is POV and unencyclopaedic. Your anti-ISIL stance is palpable and shows in your very reluctance to call the group by their proper name "ISIL". Dropping the "Islamic" and using "'SIL" is very telling. I think it is right to go from the general to the particular in an encyclopaedia and will not revert. You have your convictions, I have several times quoted on the Talk page what an encyclopaedia is, and that is that. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
With regard to what you say above we would need to begin with a section on War crimes, Crimes against humanity and Ethnic cleansing. These are relevant starting points. Please have a look at List of war crimes. Should we rename this as "List of terrorist incidents"? It is not right to favour the less relevant over the relevant. That is unencyclopaedic. Cameron, Obama and others have not even spoken about terrorism for a long time as far as I can remember. They talk of other issues more. Wikipedia is putting a topic (in this case terrorist interpretations) into prime position while others are using it as an admittedly important side note. This is unencyclopedic. Take a look at List of terrorist incidents connected to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. We can't put this as No. 1 consideration. This would be unencyclopedic. Its a group calling itself "Islamic State ..." being criticised by Islam and by surrounding states. Can you not see this? This is the central issue. You are brushing aside central issues for the sake of lesser used terminologies.
As for my use of 'SIS, please don't be offended. According to the article, Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah advised the use of "QSIS". Representatives of the Islamic Society of Britain proposed UIS. I am showing respect. I am trying to use "proper names". Islamic contingents advise similar action. Please don't be critical on non-issues. You say "Your anti-ISIL stance is palpable". Please justify! I am trying to maintain balance and faithfully reflect realities. Where do you think that this is not the case? Gregkaye✍♪03:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
@Gregkaye: I equate many of the acts which Islam and surrounding states criticise this group for with acts of terrorism, the killings, the attacks on minorities, the ethnic cleansing, the instilling of fear wherever they go. They literally terrorize their enemies. That is my view on it. Your definition of terrorism is obviously different from mine and I would genuinely be interested to know what yours is and cannot understand how you can dismiss it so lightly in this context. On the other point, which I will answer fully as I believe you are genuinely troubled by it, of course I am not offended by 'SIL and understand that it is your way of showing respect, but if you really cannot see how obviously anti-ISIL you are, how it stands out and how it affects your editing, after all the discussions on jihadism since the beginning of October at least, and after many editors have spelled it out time and again, especially at AN/I, to me it casts doubt on whether you are capable of thinking objectively about ISIL for the purpose of this article. That is not meant to be insulting but is just an observation. You know that editors must not be partisan in the way they edit and have to edit neutrally. Your defence of Islam goes way beyond what is acceptable in an encyclopaedia. A WP article is not a polemic. I don't disrespect you for your stance, but I believe it is making you unable to edit objectively. This is an encyclopaedia, not a forum to right great wrongs. Many other editors have criticized you for POV and in this they are normally far less civil than I am. I like to think I am forceful but not uncivil. I haven't attacked and insulted you as some have. On this particular edit you are entitled to your opinion and to think I am wrong-headed. I don't want to get into yet more long arguments on yet another topic and on this I am not persuadable. You are free to revert and I won't resist it. I cannot say fairer than that. I am content to have made my point publicly with my edit. Frankly, I no longer care what happens to this article, as for me it has now gone way beyond what I think an encyclopaedic article should be and is unsalvageable, but still wish to make my views known via edits. Anyone can revert me and I will accept it. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
@Gregkaye: I don't want to score points, but your link to ISIL terrorist incidents shows just two foreign-based ones. Is there a similar list for Iraq- and Syria-based ones? Please remember that Jessica Lewis' description of ISIL as "not a terrorism problem any more" is in the analysis section and is an opinion only. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
To be honest I have previously argued similar points as you have on a broad understanding of terror. This was following objections to the jihadist proposals and, mainly as an illustration, I proposed that terrorist should equally be added as a prime descriptor. I agree that this is a situation where many may live [or not] in terror. The fact though is that a lot of the abuses occur caused by people that regard themselves to be Muslim so as to affect other people who largely also regard themselves to be Muslim. Both sides as a generalisation question the faithfulness of the other side. It is a Sunni-Shia/ Sunni-Sunni issue. The great wrongs that I would want to right are mainly the ones on Wikipedia. I have appreciated your attitude, after large representations of critical content in the article were downgraded or wiped, you were instrumental in helping to bring it back to prominence. I think think that the presentation of a rebel group as a nation which seems to be a POV pushed by many editors. The attitude of arranging beheadings articles so as to present the hand full of Westeners first and then to mention an unknown number of Syrians and Iraqis last is wrong. The Rhetorical mention of U.S. is wrong and I suspect bad faith. Have you seen the article that Legacypac highlighted for possible deletion on the talk page? I am anti-discrimination, anti-coercion, anti-misretpresentation and the list goes on. I'm not anti-ISIL to any greater extent than I was anti-WE or anti-Technophant. I am however anti-the things that groups and people do that I think are wrong and am also appalled at the abuses of countries like Israel.
I also fear a backlash too the people under ISIL but they regime is not helping itself. Any normal group that wasn't pushing their own POV dominance agenda would say to Iraq and Syria, let's talk peace. As you may have gathered there are many situations in which I will go out of my way to defend people. I wish that the situation would allow this attitude to extend to this group. They live by the sword with no apparent mercy. In the current state of things I will not defend them but I have been known to radically change my stance when situations change. There are many situations where I would sympathise with a claim to independence and nationhood. Scotland, no problem. Ireland, if wanted. Its not an issue. Hong Kong. Why not? If people can muster a live and let live attitude its all good. It pains me that similar situation does not exist in Iraq, Syria border regions. The issue is largely a religious dispute and this is how it is best understood.
@Gregkaye:: (edit conflict) I had been thinking that the more I went on and nearly said it, that it boils down to how terrorism is defined. :)
I concede that I have - have, not may have - downplayed the importance of what I know to be true, your standing up for justice and fair treatment and wish to correct the balance when you see it going the wrong way, wherever it is. I agree completely that the ordering of beheadings is wrong and shows unforgivable bias – I found that distasteful as well – but really WP as an encylopaedia is not the place to defend Muslims against ISIL in the way you have been doing by taking such a strong anti-ISIL stance. WP really isn't the place to fight any kind of moral battles. Do you understand the NPOV principle, and do you think this article is a special case which justifies overriding it? A clear answer, please, would help in understanding many of your edits better.
The Sunni-Shia conflict generally in the Middle East as it relates to the current ISIL crisis would make an interesting article, wouldn't it? – though it obviously couldn't be covered in this article because of length problems. We are not so far apart in many ways, for as I think you were alluding to I opened that section on criticism specifically to deal with all the criticisms of ISIL from everywhere that were beginning to pile up and couldn't possibly be ignored by the article any longer. I can't remember if that was before or after you arrived. I hoped the criticisms could be confined to that section, but to my dismay they have bled into the very way the article is now constructed and destroyed its neutral stance, IMO, an unforeseen consequence. Gazkthul opened the human rights abuses section, btw, when they could no longer be ignored by the article either. It is very interesting to see how the article has grown since about mid-June. It was tiny in comparison in the sense of aspects covered – look at all the sections it has acquired since – though obviously this is a function of the rapid growth of ISIL's strength and influence since then.
Which article has Legacypac highlighted for deletion? I don't read everything on the Talk page.. :( I hadn't noticed the US bias before, and that's probably because in the text I concentrate on copy-editing and do it sort of blindly. :( ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
As the norm for all humanity I feel that I am in the perfect position to comment on NPOV. On a more serious note I'll try my best to answer when I've given it some thought. I think I know where i stand but don't want to jump the gun. (I don't normally use phrases like "jump the gun"). The article was add is 2014 U.S. and allies versus Islamic State hostilities and conflicts. I think it was written by a friend of yours. Lego placed a succinct link to it on the TP. Gregkaye✍♪13:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: Yes, I think you said you were bullied badly at one time. Never expected an immediate answer! It is probably a hard question. I will look at that article. I think I dealt with Felino fairly on the Talk page re the Lead paragraph. I hope he gets the message. I couldn't have spelled it out more clearly, but he can be deaf when he wants to be. :) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
lol, I also said that I don't give a *fuck* what people think of me and that was meant in a simple factual (non value laden statement) kind of way). The two issues (past experience and present attitude) are definitely connected. I have no problem in saying where I think things are. It was something I wanted to give it some thought. You have a history of asking good and relevant questions. I would be stupid not to take the opportunity.
I have always been clear that I am not a neutral person. But, if you were to draw a parameter between a Caligula, Pot or Stalin and the likes of a Geldoff, I would hope that I would come out towards the relatively scruffy end.
I still have deep respect for the goals of NPOV (add: more thoughts follow) in that, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". However I have always had the view that views on talk pages can venture further than this as long as the end goal is kept in sight. This has been a bit of an eye opener taking another look at the content of the text. I don't need to ask! but feel free to comment.
Explanation of the neutral point of view
Avoid stating opinions as facts. I think I do OK on this. I have presented opinions strongly.
Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. I wouldn't say this is a major flaw.
Avoid stating facts as opinions. My instinct was to say no but then I doubted that as well. As I think you have well judged I am a disputer of things. Was that even a cat? I think that I am even handed in my questioning. I have trust issues but don't manipulate in the same way as I think some have.
Prefer nonjudgmental language. Opps. This has rapidly gone backwards and forwards in my mind. In the context of a great many strong and judgemental statements being made against this group I think there is some leeway but my presentation of, I seem to recollect, "this hateful group" possibly (certainly) crosses the line. I had hoped that I had got off that soapbox.
I have also presented POV arguments. For instance presenting google searches on words such as "terrorist" AND "game" was clearly an appeal to conscience issues and I knew it. I am fairly happy with this and to an extent I think it to be an alternative ideal that Wikipedia can be an encyclopaedia with shades of conscience. I said at the time that I thought that presenting terrorist in isolation would be irresponsible. I stick to that and think that, while such issues should not be considered as central arguments, I think that they can be of relevance in debatable or tipping the balance situations.
If it were up to me I would rewrite the basic NPOV statement that, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written so that it presents a neutral point of view". I know that I don't have a NPOV but I also sincerely want to develop encyclopedic content.
I also stick to my view that I don't think that you have had a completely NPOV in regard to topics such as diktats, the semantics of criticism and, on the other side of things, perhaps not being as quick to tackle the issue of execution as implying, to an admittedly incomplete extent, legality. Back to me, with regard to other editors I think I have been fairly even handed with all and, even in cases where I have been personally wronged, have not pushed proceedings.
Gregkaye: As ever a careful and thoughtful reply and I didn't expect one so quickly. You have indeed been even-handed with all and have never pushed proceedings when you could have done. I will go back to the earlier part in a separate reply, but am surprised that you say I have not had a completely NPOV on diktats and criticism; I am open to challenge, so would be interested to hear why you think this. I am not sure what you mean by "perhaps not being as quick to tackle the issue of execution as implying, to an admittedly incomplete extent, legality", because I changed all the "execution" references in the text to "killings" some weeks ago. As no-one has taken me to task in WP for anything before, it will do me good to examine my own attitudes. I think my somewhat overbearing presence on the Talk page now – which is a very big change post-WE – may prevent that, but I could be wrong. I don't expect a reply this weekend, if that helps. Btw, my forensic questioning habit is second nature (and not always applied in WP editing, I'm afraid) and where people are concerned stems from a deep interest in how people tick. I am used to analysing friends to their faces and am always slightly surprised when they don't take offence when I say hard things! I have certainly had you on the etherizing table (T. S. Eliot, I think) more than once! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I was quite at your mercy which, in capable hands, wasn't at all disagreeable. Strangely, the thread started generally and ended with aesthetic . I am not surprised at your friends reactions. I have long had the impression that I could talk to you and I think that this would have still been the case even if I were more guarded than I am .. no can be.
As you may have seen I can go from being quite combative in some situations and ... well ... anaesthetised in others. Gregkaye✍♪17:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll make some effort
not to let this thread get turned back on me.
Long exchange (no comments removed)
On diktats,..., as I said, I think that this is a clean, simple description of most if not all the content in that section. On Criticism, I think that anyone that heard about either a group or a person that had an acquaintance with something like killing would have hardly be surprised that a related commentary had a content such as criticism. Many people would be far from surprised to see something much stronger and I don't see any reason for special care to be taken with a word like this. Maybe with other article topics but not with QSIL/UIS/'SIL. I wasn't intending to ask this but here goes, what offends you (if that's the right word) most, me using alternate acronyms like those or something such as my earlier profanity?
We had both been in the PBS thread in which the murder - execution POV issues were mentioned and, certainly the comments were addressed to me in relation to a query of mine. I had seen the word executed placed in the timeline text and yet the word wasn't found in the citation. It was slightly later that you brought up the diktats issue which, as I have mentioned, is, in my POV, a good, straightforward description of content. Ask yourself why this was the issue that struck a chord with you. I know it is with good motives but it seemed that you felt quite strongly that this wording was inappropriate. All the same I won't say that the case on execution as being certainly inappropriate is in anyway clear cut. Lego, for instance, followed up on a related comment of mine to say that his main base for objecting to it was that, in categories, it is connected to capital punishment. In this light I am not sure whether I should have mentioned this again. At the time of the diktats question I felt a bit embattled about something and hadn't myself edited out the references. Your sequence for removal was references to massacres first and executions second. (how's that for forensic?) I know that you have done a lot of content editing on the timeline and, while I should have had no reason to think that you might have gone back over previous content to deal with references there as well, I still unfairly noted that these references hadn't been removed. On this point this probably says more about me than about you.
Anyway, all is good. Mosh Ben Ari has just been on the radio. My Hebrew is not so good that I can track down the song but, back in the day, this was a song that brought a smile. "Comes to me God God God, that who comes, comes, comes, he always comes in the time". More relevantly is a track from before my time here, still with a slightly repetitive content, which is good if you are learning the language, "Still it will come, peace upon us; still it will come, peace upon us; still it will come, peace upon us; and upon everyone, Peace upon us and upon everyone, PeacePeace. Peace upon us and upon everyone." It does more like that. It was poignant in Israel. Hear it through. I think this is good content for my User page Gregkaye✍♪17:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: Yes, you should add that to your userpage. On the swearing, I find it more offensive than the acronym, which doesn't offend me at all! I only raised the acronym as being indicative of your attitude to the group. On executions, I should first say that I have not been anywhere near as methodical and regular in copy-editing the timeline article as I have the main one. I tend to do it in dribs and drabs, quite unsystematically, and have never altered "executed" when I should have done. I ought to do the same for "executed" and "massacred" in the timeline article as I did in the main one. There is MUCH more to copy-ed in the timeline article and I get bogged down with that rather than taking in the actual sense of what I am copy-editing, if that makes sense. It is densely packed with infelicities of expression, but I know it is because a lot non-native English speakers contribute to it, it is very obvious, and I don't mind tidying that up at all. I never check that the citations are accurately reflected in the timeline as that would be a 24/7 job, but when there seemed to be fewer entries per week in June/July/August I did. I found quite a few misreports. (I wasn't so heavily involved in the TP as now so had more time to do it. The TP discussion has exploded in size since then.) Also, it is difficult to keep track of the timeline article now as I have noticed new entries popping up for dates much earlier this year, and they are not always easy to spot.
On dikats, I am sure I explained in the thread that it could be either a POV or NPOV word depending on context. I can't remember whether it was on your TP or on the main TP. "Diktat" used colloquially is always a POV word with bad overtones (of totalitarianism, etc) and is regularly used that way by modern media, the press, especially the redtops, etc. There is a dictionary definition which describes that use and I am sure I put in on that thread. I have often seen the word used pejoratively in the press to describe someone's or some organization's actions as outrageously and culpably authoritarian. That is why I reacted to it the way I did when I saw it in the title of that section. To me it screamed POV! When you quoted the British Encyclopaedia references, I looked them up and am sure said to you that "diktat" there had a very precise meaning. It is a good, history-writing word with a narrow, inference-free and precise meaning, which is the way it was being used by the BE and obviously as I can see now by you in the title. I was reacting to first sense of the word, and still don't like it in the title, as the word still jumps out in its pejorative sense to me, but am (half) happy to let it stand, as I can see it may not resonate that way for many readers, especially the younger generation. Legacypac seemed not to be aware of the pejorative sense, nor did any other editors. Out of curiosity only, have you ever seen the word used in the pejorative sense I described? Can I get back to you on "Criticisms", to explain my objections there? That may take longer! It is good to straighten these things out as I don't like these misunderstandings/differences between us spoil things if it can be avoided. I looked at our colleague's article, a brave shot for a non-English speaker, but clearly the article will have to be deleted as it repeats other articles and is too POV according to one editor. Wheels of Steel0 is a dark horse. Have you noticed how sometimes his English is very broken and at others excellent? Very odd. I have my theories. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure I have heard the term used pejoratively. But in the new order such use will be outlawed . grin. In the pejorative sense I would interpret the meaning to affect an entity whose actions were less extreme than 'SIL's so as to infer that the entity's actions are in actuality as extreme as 'SIL's. As I've said I am not fussed which strong and descriptive phrase gets added to each section and I think that there may be a variety of possibilities. I am happy and interested in what you'll say but, as far as.I'm concerned, its not strictly necessary.
All this talk about POV suddenly got me thinking about "Stepford editors". I think that a lot of editors have POV and I think that while we both view things passionately, we can deal with things directly.
I has been pointed out to me at various points that my English isn't always so good. In fact in previous discussions some editors have been convinced that English was my se.. was not my first language. What can you do? Gregkaye✍♪21:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: Yes, the POV ones are easily spotted. Haven't much more to say, except on "Criticism". Tomorrow! ~ P123ct1 (talk)
Gregkaye: I never got back to you on this. (I must have missed a tilde in the last message, so you won't have seen it.) The plethora of "Criticisms" in section headings has been reduced right down, so the problem is solved as far as I'm concerned. You may have noticed I moved the terrorist designation section to just after "History". This was not to bypass your revert and you will have to believe me on this. It suddenly struck me that the designations were not really "citicism" at all in the way the other criticisms are, but part of the "official" history of the group (the first designation was in 2004). Again, I can't remember how it got put with "Criticisms" in the first place or who did it; it is hard to remember the twists and turns of edits. I am happy to let the order in "Criticisms" stand, btw, in case you were wondering. This is just an FYI, no need to respond. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
It has been a long and winding road that has led to the current state of the article. I had earlier alluded to the dichotomy between "Criticism" and designation and agree with the split. I don't see any justification for putting the designation as terrorist before group characteristics and not similarly placing criticisms at a similar stage in the article. I could understand it if the designation had been placed at a relevant sequence point within the history section. I am guessing that all our earlier opinions on all this still stand. Gregkaye✍♪13:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)]
Gregkaye: Legacypac has incorporated some of the criticisms into "History" which I agree with, but I am unclear, are you happy or not happy for the terrorist designations to come after "History", as a separate section, or do you think it should be incorporated into "History"? I would be happy to add it to "History", as the last subsection. Whatever I think on the other issues, I am not fussed what happens now, tbh, but it would be nice to have major unilateral changes put to editors for comment and/or consensus before making them. :( ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I certainly agree in the unilateral decisions point but mainly on the basis on building the collegiate atmosphere we talked of earlier. I also have no problem in the fact that you made the move of designation content which, on this thread, got notification. I personally don't agree with the move and, for all my earlier reasons, it makes me deeply uneasy. In relation to this another thing that I recently spotted was that most of the listed groups at: List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations#Organizations currently officially designated as terrorist by various governments seem to be groups that each nation considers to be a personal threat. For instance the Provisional Irish Republican Army was only proscribed/designated by the UK and, perhaps due to special relationship, by the US. There are many other examples. Also take a comparative look at Al-Qaeda#toc. This is an organisation whose main thrust has been terrorism and yet, and I am not saying this is right, the designation comes far down in the content. I don't ever remember terrorism as being mentioned in relation to local people's and certainly not in contexts other than the use of bombs and suicide bombs. I think that you have a POV on interpretations of terrorist terminologies and the relative importance of this section. I also suspect that this fits in with agendas of other editors on this page. This adds to my views on the relative importance of related issues. Gregkaye✍♪14:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: I will revert it, then, as I don't want to cause trouble. As official designations – and for no other reason – I thought they should be placed prominently. I cannot see how this shows POV. I have no agenda on terrorism, or this wretched ISIL topic in general, beyond wanting the article to be encylopaedic and neutral in its stance. That really is as far as it goes for me, and I believe for many editors whom you suspect of having an agenda. I really think you imagine things about them. I don't believe Felino123 has an agenda, for example, although I agree there are a few who clearly do. Some editors for some time have regularly gone on about parts of this article being POV and/or unencylopaedic and to me they clearly have no agenda beyond that. My only concern with this article is (a) that it sticks to WP:NPOV (anything can be said, as long as when it is said in WP's voice, it is said neutrally) and (b) that it is encylopaedic. I could not give a f*** about anything else in this article (apart from copy-editing), and never did, from the word go. If you cannot see this by now, I am truly astounded, given the many, many times I have repeated myself on this. Sorry to sound so impatient! P123ct1 (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: I have reverted and taken this to the Talk page. I deliberately pinged Felino as he has just as strong feelings about this as you do. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: Sorry I tore into you on the TP about terrorism. I said I have no agenda on terrorism or where the designations as terrorist should go, and I don't, but saw red when you said ISIL weren't so much terrorists now, as to me they very obviously are! I have strong POV on that, but it doesn't affect how I think this edit should go. We will have to agree to differ. I am not going to insist on the designations going in any particular place (but will give an opinion if a consensus-forming discussion starts, though just in "yes"/"no" form), and take your point about the designations appearing low down in the al-Qaeda article when there was greater reason to give them prominence than in ISIL's case. If you want me to remove my "Question Time" ref, I will - just wanted to show you and other editors the combat was not personal. Hope it's not another of my "jokes" that has backfired. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: DO NOT BE ALARMED! You will see the designations have gone back up to the top again, but I think this was part of a mistake Legacypac made in one of his recent edits. I think he was editing onto an old version or something, as a lot of edits have been knocked out. I have just told him on his TP and he pinged back "thanks", so he is probably unscrambling it now. :) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I mean facing groups of antagonists. When there is a constant and predictable pressure, fear does not always factor into the situation. By general usage of the term, terrorism is far from being the best description of 'SIL's activities. Its grinding systematic human rights abuse. There are UN criticisms that would be more appropriate to quote if needed. On issues beyond encyclopaedic issues, I think that an emphasis on terrorism can be counterproductive but I have explained this before. Gregkaye✍♪00:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: I would agree that grinding systematic human rights abuse is the best way to describe ISIL now – it's why I didn't like the heading being "War crimes" rather than "Human rights abuses" – but an encyclopaedia article has to cover what they were as well as what they are now. And I still maintain that a lot of the human rights abuses they perpetrate are a form of terrorism, but like you I have explained that before.:) Interesting what you say about constant and predictable pressure meaning fear is not always a factor. I don't think that can mean what I meant when I spoke about the IRA; that was nothing compared to what Muslims and other are now suffering at the hands of ISIL. Why not provide some more UN criticisms in that section? Good idea. Late here, tomorrow... Interesting discussions today. :) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to the talk page question relating to the positioning of table with the terrorist designation information in which you said " this all boils down to semantics, doesn't it? Without an agreed definition of terrorism by the experts, what hope is there for us here?" The hope is that we can fairly consider the use of definitions and not throw up "there's no hope type derailing comments". You have said that you think Human rights abuse is the best reference for the group and yet you promote a term that is not centrally relevant to many of the abuses. Gregkaye✍♪08:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: I was stating the truth as I see it, as do other editors. Sometimes what we say you are not going to like, but that is the nature of editing in Wikipedia. The truth as I see it is that it is very hard to define terrorism satisfactorily as the wiki article clearly demonstrates, and that is a truth which is inconvenient for this article is what I meant. I said human rights abuse was a better reference than war crimes, not that terrorism is a better reference. I was not promoting the term terrorism, I was simply saying that one of ISIL's defining characteristics was that they are terrorists, which is not quite the same thing. You really must to stop regarding editors' comments that you don't like as derailing tactics, Greg. They are editors' honest opinions in the majority of cases and they are not intended to derail anything. My views on anything will not affect my editing now as I said before, I am going to concentrate on copy-editing. I have no more stomach for the endless squabbles. My long comments on terrorism yesterday were made with no thought at all of how it would or should end up in an edit. I just wanted to make the point that I thought ISIL were terrorists, full stop. I took the question to the Talk page so that editors could decide where to put the reference. As I said, I got sidetracked when you said ISIL were not terrorists.
I don't know what has happened to the terrorist designation placement. I put it back into the "Criticism" section after the muddle caused by Legacy, which he freely acknowledged, and it has somehow got back to the top again. Another of my restorations after the muddle got knocked out as well. I have just restored that one and will now restore the terrorist designation to where it was in "Criticism". Maybe Legacy did it by accident when he was trying to restore some other edits, I don't know. It is quite hard to sort out the mess when someone edits onto an old version. WE once did a sterling job of sorting out one such mess. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: I have just restored the terrorist designation to "Criticism" and will not touch it again. Do not look to me if its position changes again. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
P123ct1 The content edit would seem to have been in line with current talk page consensus which looks to be going against arguments I presented. What I said was that your comments on "grinding systematic human rights abuse" as being the best way to describe ISIL now, while being of interest to me, would also be of relevance in the article talk page discussion. In response to your comment I have edited the related section title in the article to: "Human rights abuse/war crime accusations and findings"
On the other issue I think there is hope. There are very few words to which clear definitions are provided by experts and yet, in hope, we work with the situations we have. True we don't have expert provided definitions, at least not that are universally accepted. We do have definitions and in most situations this is enough. Gregkaye✍♪09:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: I am glad you made that edit to the heading and I hope it sticks. It seemed unreasonable to me to have a whole section that among other things catalogued human rights abuses that did not even use the phrase "human rights abuses". I hope the terrorism dispute dies down. I did think it was important to raise it on the Talk page, though. You are correct when you say editors have to work with what they have, and I am sure they are sensible enough to have recognized my comment for what it was and dismissed it. I apologise for harsh comments lately, Greg, but they stem from sheer exasperation, and any apparent hostility stems from the same thing. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that heading is good and Legopac thanked me for it. I'm also pleased that you raised position issue on the talk page. I freely admit that I may have misjudged the consensus view on this topic. What will be will be. I still think that we need to be clear on terminologies. With this in mind I have started a thread at; WP talk:WikiProject Terrorism:RfC, Are terrorist and terrorism relevant designators when actions are conducted within territory controlled by a group? I would prefer the discussion to run in independence from people who have become involved in ISIL related issues and have mentioned that I would be willing to add notification on the ISIL page if required. I won't add to that thread further but will be interested in the results. Gregkaye✍♪12:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: That is a good idea. The question of whether and how far ISIL can now be called terrorists is clearly a vexed one, and has only emerged properly after my raising where the terrorist designations should go. It needed sorting out. I admire your tenacity and initiative. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
as previously mentioned I admire your ability to raise/ ask good questions. Lego, for instance would want to list every beheading on all pages. Gregkaye✍♪12:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Cannot put this message on your Talk page as he has been pinged and would see this. It is undoubtedly the same editor, as the diffs I highlighted there for the two userpages show. Should this new account name be added to the current SPI?
Long exchange
I think technically it can be, as this case is still waiting to be dealt with – see list in WP:SPI. I will check with the Help Desk now. I think just adding the new account name, the diff for the edit, and links to the two userpages would be enough, with no further comment. I won't do anything until I hear from you. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye I didn't get a ping for your latest message on your TP (perhaps there is a time delay). I have asked at the Help Desk. I am assuming you don't want anything done before the editor has had the chance to reply, which I think is fair. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I really think that your action on this is up to you. As you know, my thoughts were that the ed, when confronted with behaviour, then changed. At this point this does not seem to be the case. I think that you can either add it now or leave it as a Sword of Damocles. In a stonewalled situation I have no clue as to the best course of action. Unlike other situations, I am less sure if this ed actually deserves the consideration. Gregkaye✍♪14:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: I always thought your attitude was too lenient and that I had his number right from the start, although I didn't like to press the point at the time as you were so upset about the SPI. I could have said a lot more about the behaviour but it would be unprintable in WP. The Help Desk said that this account can be added to the SPI, but I will leave it as a Sword of Damocles for the time being. There is plenty of time as the backlog for dealing with the SPI cases is still heavy and this one has not moved much up the list in a week. I predict there will be absolute silence. Please do not suggest again that I have a punitive mentality. Bad behaviour needs nipping in the bud, simple as that. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
You are quite the disciplinarian. I should have handled things differently with Mohammed at the start with and I don't think it helped that I got him off. I still think that the directional approach can also work. Over doing things can get a WE type response and I still think that the hardest things said in that case came from me. When dealing with anti-Semitism issues I encountered a whole load of unreasoning and unencyclopeadic POV and was not expecting reasoned approaches when I came here. When I came to the page I made my 1RR infringements on ISIL. A slap down approach was taken from which the easiest options would have been fight or flight and I don't think that everyone would have jumped through the hoops that I did. I'd like to see an approach that would keep people engaged in WP while dealing with behaviour would be great. Gregkaye✍♪00:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: You mean that got you in the end to AN/I? I think you were given several warnings on the TP, by me, I think, about what it could lead to, weren't you? Not that I want to rake over old coals. You are right that a heavy-handed approach could drive some editors away. I always perhaps wrongly assume that people are tougher than that. Please remember that WE's RfC/U was a last resort, after many attempts by me at least to reconcile. I don't think I'm a disciplinarian – I talk tough and it is usually accepted as I said before once people know why I am doing it, but I have never actually meted out "punishment" to anyone! That is why it felt so strange taking M to SPI; I had never done anything like that before and didn't like it, as I said. I don't count the RfC/U or A/NI as T. was in charge of those and I sort of tagged along (not trying to excuse myself there). Out of curiosity only, what do you mean by the hoops you jumped through? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
No I mean when I first joined the page with my original ISIL edits. As I said earlier, I would have been quite happy to have committed WP suicide on the jihadist issue on the basis that I think that it is right and I was quite happy to ignore the warnings on the TP. The only thing that stopped me was what I considered to be a gaming inspired vindictive and, as it turned out, extremely partial approach taken in the AN/I's "execution". The hoops go back to the ISIL issue at which point I pinged a number of editors to explain my actions and put them in context and to initiate with you for guidance on how to fix footnotes which, I'm pleased to say, you were happy to give. Hoops may be an exaggeration.
I think that there have been a few editors to favour edits that 'SIL's pr wing would be proud of. Wheels would take some beating. Gregkaye✍♪01:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
We are dealing with this in 3RR right now and you are tagging that the source does not support? "Al-Baghdadi has the megalomaniacal aim of restoring the long-expired caliphate, the original Muslim kingdom that existed under the successors of the Prophet Mohammed and at one point extended from modern-day Spain to Central Asia. "Caliph," or khalifa, means "successor" in Arabic, and by taking the title, al-Baghdadi has declared himself the chief imam and political and military leader of all Muslims." http://theweek.com/article/index/267920/abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-the-man-who-would-be-caliph
Swear words
You says that you made this edit (dated 18 November 2014) with an edit commentary "Unblock redux: rmv swear words" because "I removed the words on request." (dated 4 December 2014).
As I was assuming good faith, and as would any other editor. your edit comment of "rmv swear words" looks like a mild refactoring per 'not in front of the servants or children'. If you were asked to do it, then you should have made that very clear in your edit history comment. That you did not do so shows a lack of judgement -- doubly so as the words that you changed was that of an editor formally requesting an unblock which had been turned down.
Who was it that made the request and how?
Your actions also beg the question: how many other edits have you made at the request of others through a mechanism not transparent to other Wikipeida editors where you have not declared the request in the edit history of a page? -- PBS (talk) 11:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Now I see why PBS was touchy - it looked as if I had removed this thread to hide it. I had no idea it would be so difficult to see in the archive as a removed thread. I thought it would be as easy to retrieve and read as a removed thread in a current Talk page. My intention was to remove a thread that made me look like a f****** criminal.at worst and a dishonest editor at best. P-123 (talk)
A barnstar for you!
The Half Barnstar
Hey, it was a good idea to walk away from that dispute. The problem with gregkaye was that they didn't give you a proper chance for you to walk away from the dispute. I'll be happy to handle this in the best manner I can from now on. LorChat01:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The edit above has in fact been redacted several times from an original version that additionally stated: "I understand why he does this, too; his motives are always impeccable."
I greatly appreciated that here you stated, "Don't know why I got a half-barnstar... as I didn't walk away... " but you worded this more strongly still.
It would have been a kindness if you had made some kind of similar factually based comment in this thread. Instead, above, you seem to merely endorse a response from Lor that it seems we both think was one sided.
P-123 I would be interested in your perceptions in the way that you think we differ in regard to editing policy to the extent of being polar opposites.
We have both contributed to a lot of threads since I first raised the issue of
On the ISIL Talk page a lot was said about jihadism and I was grateful for your support with regard to the later proposals.
There were also a lot of discussions where we agreed on things and/or worked constructively together:
We've had both agreements and disagreements on article content. Where are our differences on article policy to the extent of being polar opposites? GregKaye✍♪23:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
This is exactly the sort of discussion and 3D-ing I mentioned that I do not want to get into. I have struck out my comment accordingly. P-123 (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I first raised this issue subtly within a post that I suggested be deleted purely for the sake of saving face. Amongst content I said:
"I will not dispute your claim that "we are polar opposites on editing policy" but I would like to see it justified. Where do you think you are on with regard to editing policy? Where do you think I am?"
You took me up on the offer of deletion while dismissing content as bizarre and that was all. My simple request is that comments are not made about me or other editors unless they are substantiated. I have been making requests on this theme with you for a very long time. I don't want to get into this is the kind of thing either. There has got to be some give on both sides. GregKaye✍♪08:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I have repeatedly asked you to drop this, to stop asking so many questions and making "requests" of this kind. You cannot police another editor's thoughts and actions in the way you have been attempting to do, for what seems like a very long time. You seem to have developed an obsession about this. P-123 (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
In midway edits of your reply to the half barnstar award you had commented, "...though he would probably dispute that". Despite this you still left the "we are polar opposites on editing policy" claim. Your thoughts are your own. I once privately expressed a desire to see this claim justified and subsequently posted as above. Perhaps I do have an obsession. This was a mild example but I have felt worn down and frustrated by unreferenced comments. I don't have anything more to say on this that I haven't said many times already. GregKaye✍♪16:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I meant my comment as just that, a comment. Absolutely no criticism of you was intended. You must have a very short memory if you cannot see that. There have been many, many times on the main Talk page where we have (amicably) clashed over what NPOV means. You know it was only ever a professional disagreement. I cannot understand your obsession about what I think. I have never set out to damage you on the main Talk page, I have just expressed disagreement, as we all do with each other, routinely. That is what editing is about. Drop it, will you? P-123 (talk)
I didn't argue about what was intended. I have a pretty good memory the judgement was not necessary. True. Which that was. I also think that many of your interactions with me on my user page have also been constructive. You have done more than that. I will represent myself. GregKaye✍♪17:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
"The judgment was not necessary." Please stop behaving like thought-police, and please stop posting comments. P-123 (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:P-123. 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.
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Hello, I'm Widr. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Tempo (Indonesian magazine) because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Widr (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
![[2]](http://www.auwyn.madasafish.com/druv/content/bin/images/large/bonfire07_61.jpg%7C*){kind=link}
