User talk:PBS/Archive 17 - Wikipedia

Doing well here how have you been? Tirronan (talk)

Hi Phil, there's a typo in your AWB edit summaries: "tempates" should be "templates". Graham87 14:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I replied there and thank you! --Lvhis (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You are making numerous AWB edits like this and this, which change the correct spelling of "References" to the incorrect "Refrences" - Please stop - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Please can you check references for

• Martineau family
• James Martineau
• Philip Meadows Martineau

THanks so much Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.17.244 (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what it is that you think needs checking. -- PBS (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

In your Navigator, you have a slight misspelling. You have "sandboxs", the correct spelling is "sandboxes". I attempted to make the change myself (cause I know a message about spelling mistakes seems rude), but wasn't able to. Just letting you know. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your appreciation. Though I have been wondering if that was for what I said, or what I didn't say. :-) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

This wiki-kitten wants to thank you for your copyediting and other fixes. Such gnomish edits are always appreciated!

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
-YMB29 (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I answered your question at the ref desk, and have added his birthday as well in case you missed my addendum. μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide definitions until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

PBS, firstly I acknowledge that you are disappointed that I brought Genocide definitions to multiafd today. I may have gone about it the wrong way, but I hope you will give me the benefit of the doubt when I say that it is a genuine (perhaps misguided) attempt to reach consensus on the questions of dicdef and copyright as they relate to such articles.

Anyway, I'm coming here to ask whether you would mind if i bring up the same question at village pump.

I would really like to achieve closure on this point - and the only way i know to do so is to find a process to reach a real consensus.

Oncenawhile (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Just left you a message at my talk page. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a message to say thanks for resolving the situation at that article. I recognise my thanks likely means little or nothing given your negative view of me, but your intervention has saved a few of us from continuing our endless circular arguments, so thank you. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

1814 campaign in France (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Montereau, Montmirail, Vauchamps and Victor

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a note to let you know I mentioned you in a discussion on my talkpage as to the Battle of Berlin matter. Kierzek (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

What is your reasoning for ignoring WP:ASF?

The text of Wikipedia articles should not assert opinions but should assert facts. When a statement is a fact (a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute) it should be asserted without prefixing it with "(Source) says that ...", and when a statement is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it should be attributed to the source that offered the opinion using inline-text attribution.[1]

Is that so hard to understand?
I did verify this on the NPOV noticeboard, so you can't claim that this is only my opinion.[2] -YMB29 (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, PBS.

Re this edit: Hitler was known to be kind to children and dogs, and sometimes even banned users do exactly the right thing. I'm not saying you weren't within your rights to revert, but the rub is that now the title is a mismatch to the text and needs to be changed back to include the cedilla. I'll leave it with you for prompt action. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Please don't use the Reflinks tool on Google Books links, as you did here: the output is inaccurate at best. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted your recent edits as they created a load of redlinks. Perhaps you would like to try again. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Apologies - I shouldn't try to edit after an evening out! -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Whenever an IP (or any user for that matter) adds a large chunk of unedited text (no refs/wikilinks), then I get suspicious. The good news is that the deleted edits and this version are entirely different pieces, so it wasn't taken from a mirror. I also copypasted several phrases at random into Google to see if anything came up, and for any I used, the entry was the only result. So, perhaps surprisingly, the additions appear to be legit, unless it was someone copying something from a book source, which would be beyond my ability to find. Wizardman 02:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't knew. OccultZone (Talk) 12:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I just saw, somebody had notified AWB community about this proposal. But nothing seems to have done. You got any idea, why? OccultZone (Talk) 12:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Eyre Coote (British Army officer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Mansion House, Charles Grey, Battle of Brooklyn, Bandon and Battle of Bergen

Sir Harry Burrard, 1st Baronet of Lymington (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Arthur Wellesley and Hew Dalrymple

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

George Wilkes Unett (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cambray

William Douglas of Balgillo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to 74th Foot

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of consensus. Although there is no strictly defined numerical ratio, outside of RfAs and RfBs, anything over 2/3 is frequently considered to suffice to show consensus. In this case, there was actually 70.5% support for the change, which should be more than enough. bd2412 T 23:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I have started a discussion that may interest you at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#WP:BOLDTITLE and election articles. Anomalocaris (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I know it certainly depends upon the size of the page, but still, if the page has 3-4 or more links, it cannot be said as 'underlinked' anymore? OccultZone (Talk) 10:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The proposed move of The Beatles (album) to The White Album has been altered slightly, to the simpler White Album. I'm letting you know in case you'd like to review your vote. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I am working on a diacritics RFC here. It's a rather elaborate proposal, so I thought I'd get some comments going public with it. You can put a response on the proposal's talk page. Taekwondo Panda (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have posted the RFC. Taekwondo Panda (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of Berlin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• title=The Red Army “Rape of Germany” was Invented by Goebbels |newspaper=[[Komsomolskaya Pravda]]}}([http://www.kp.ru/daily/26073/2979464/ original Russian]
• for Berlin: April& |nbsp;– May 1945]. Includes the Order of Battle for the Battle for Berlin (Le Tissier, T. ''The Battle of Berlin 1945'', Jonathan Cape, London, 1988.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello PBS. Regarding your copying of this thread. If you consider that the discussion is still in progress and want to get more comments, maybe you should remove the green box, which looks like a closure box? Perhaps you could add an RfC header, since it appears to be a discussion of "Should there be a minimum time between RM discussions? Specifically, a minimum time after a RM proposal failed to gain consensus before trying much the same thing again? " Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Military occupation of France may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *[[Military Administration in Belgium and Northern France]])(1940–1944)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, you were involve a past similiar discussion Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 115#Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley, can you give an opinion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Kekoolani? I don't think it will violate Wikipedia:Canvassing since you fall under "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)." Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

You were active in talk page discussion and so perhaps can assist at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_14#Template:Orphan. Andrew (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Canvassing.... Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

IMO, Wikipedia would better off following an established style guide like CMOS rather than made up principles like "common name" and "recognizabililty," and "accuracy." CMOS keeps it simple: It recommends following the names and spellings given in Merriam Webster (the M-W Collegiate, Geographic and Biographical dictionaries). The full version of this style is used in Britannica. In theory, it's CMOS is the standard for the whole publishing industry, even though "dumbed down" versions often get used in practice. Much too sexy (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I would like you to look into the edit war that occurs (again) in the Bosnian mujahideen page. Various people, registered or not, non-stop remove sourced and credible information on the Shia involvement on the Bosnian side in the war. Please, look into this matter and block the article plus block the registered users that constantly remove the information. Follow up with this [3]. Thank you for your time and work that you do on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.57.129 (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

If I had wanted to be a subsection of Born2cycle's post I would have put myself as a subsection Please do not reformat other users' Talk page contributions. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your recent edits on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. The thread is User:PBS reformatting Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Thank you. —Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Issy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint Germain. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica with a wikisource parameter, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Revent^talk 17:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica with an article parameter, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Revent^talk 17:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if my 'venue' for bringing it up was inappropriate... I didn't want to actually suggest deleting the code from the templates themselves because of the possibility of a later reversion to an article reactivating the deprecated parameter. These are only very recently empty, because I ran through the members and fixed them the other day. I've actually been working on the various categories like these as a 'group', at this point really just fixing the fact that most aren't marked as tracking categories or empytcats. In the process I've found some that had been deleted, but are now populated, and I assume that they were at some point in the past empty.

I'm actually not going to push on with it now, because it does work the way it currently is. I do think it would make a lot of sense to, eventually, break out parts of the code for the 'more functional' ones of these templates into a set of 'subroutine' templates for writing these things. There are quite a few that give very poor attribution (just boilerplate text) , or don't have the error tracking functionality, or don't use CS1 and so don't add COiNS, and it would be a lot easier to deal with them as a 'set' rather than trying to rewrite 100-odd templates individually. At the same time, some of the 'best' of these templates actually sort into a single error category, and use 'sorting names' for those categories to group the articles by the specific error. This seems to me to be a more sensible system, at least for the ones that don't have a massive backlog, because there's less to keep an eye on. Revent^talk 05:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Failure to follow accessibility guidelines. Thank you. Bgwhite (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Parker (jurist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Weston Underwood. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mount Victoria Tunnel may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• in 1976, the year of conversion two New Zealand Dollars were worth one New Zealand Pound (NZP) ((See [[New Zealand pound]])}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Malplaquet proclamation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• London |publisher= W. Shoberl |url=https://archive.org/details/percyhamiltonora03lenn |pages=[https://archive.org/stream/percyhamiltonora03lenn#page/178/mode/2up 178–179}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Sambre

added a link pointing to Châtelet

Wilhelm Ludwig Viktor Henckel von Donnersmarck

added a link pointing to Battle of Lützen

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello PBS, Thank you for your recent changes to the "3rd (United Kingdom) Division" page. Please can you undo one of your amendments, please? The correct unit title of the British Army's 3rd Division is "3rd (United Kingdom) Division" with the 'UK' bit in the middle, not at the end. Please see their official website for confirmation: www.army.mod.uk/3rdUKDivision . Many thanks, ArmyPost (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Combined arms may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• necessary. The [Battle of Waterloo#The French cavalry attack|great Fremch cavalry charge]] commanded by [[Marshal Ney]] during the battle failed to break Wellington's squares of infantry

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pironchamps may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• is located in Pironchamps |publisher=Farciennese Municipal Website|accessdate=August 2014}}}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Ivan |last=Sache |date=24 November 2007 |url=http://www.crwflags.com/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Siege of Kolberg (1807) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John Kirkwood may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * [[John A. Kirkwood]] (1851–1930, an American soldier and Medal of Honor recipient

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Siege of Cuddalore may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ains a German account of the siege)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to English longbow may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• use were the short [[Bodkin point|bodkin]] (Jessop M10) and a small barbed arrow (Jessop M4).{[sfn|Wadge|2007|pp=184–185}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Abdication of Napoleon, 1815 may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * {{source-attribution|{{Citation |last=Siborne |first=William |year=1848 |title=The Waterloo Campaign, 1815 |edi

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bombing of Dresden in World War II may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Bombing the European Axis Powers. A Historical Digest of the Combined Bomber Offensive 1939–1945] |location=Alabama |publisher=Air University Press |ref=harv}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1814 campaign in France may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• of her colonies she [[Tobago]], [[Santa Lucia]] and [[Mauritius]]. The treaty was quite lenient (compared to the treaty which was imposed oh her the following year [[Treaty of Paris (1815)]]. As

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Charles Stedman

added links pointing to Jacobite and William Howe

Combined arms

added a link pointing to Mont-Saint-Jean

William Stewart (1774–1827)

added a link pointing to Gold Cross

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I inserted the ref citing the UK archives some time ago to support the figure of 763,000 deaths in the Blockade. However, I must point out that I did not add other material from the the UK archives. My other edits at that article were from other sources that are properly referenced.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Brigandage

added a link pointing to Reavers

Court dwarf

added a link pointing to John Jarvis

Onoz, Namur

added a link pointing to Namur

Percy Drummond

added a link pointing to Flushing

William Millar (British Army officer)

added a link pointing to Woolwich Arsenal

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for being proactive! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Charles Best (army officer)

added links pointing to Brabant and Monkstown

Frimley Park

added a link pointing to C.

Waterloo Campaign

added a link pointing to Leuze

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abdication of Napoleon, 1815, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rochefort, Louis VIII and Frederick Lewis Maitland. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Bombing of Dresden in World War II page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I saw your query about start and end coordinates for roads. You might be interested in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/Linear#Marking. Imzadi 1979 → 20:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I also eavesdropped on that dialogue and have a suggestion that I'm more comfortable offering here. I assume you must have some kind of diagram showing the location and path of such a tunnel system, or you wouldn't know where the start and end points are. Obviously such a diagram would be far more useful to the reader than two sets of coords, but you can't copy it for copyright reasons. However, there's no reason you can't create your own diagram showing the same information, upload it to Commons, and include it in the article citing your source as a ref. If you don't have the skills and a software tool to do that, you can enlist the help of someone who does. I could suggest someone who has made a map for me, although I obviously can't guarantee he would agree. I don't know whether the above-referenced solution would be better, since I don't understand it. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Robert de Beaufeu may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• (c.1188) of Gerald of Wales read by the author at a festival at Oxford.{{sfn|Thompson|1885|p=36}}{[efn|His authorship of this piece depends on Gerald of Wales's self-serving story reporting the
• reporting the praise that Robert gave to Gerald's ''Topographia Hiberniae''.{{sfn|Rigg|2004}} }}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to House of Arenberg may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {efn|In French and the official British translation of the [[Final Act of the Congress of Vienna]] (1815 the spelling used is '''Duc d'Aremberg''' and '''Duke of Aremberg''' (see [[s:Final Act of the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. Moving this article would needlessly take the article away from our established naming convention, by which the vast majority of lighthouses are entitled "Light" Just look at any list of US lighthouse articles; virtually all are named "Light". Nyttend (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not a member of the lighthouses project; you would do well to ask them if they have a specific written page of this sort. The point still stands: the convention obviously exists, even if not written down, and it would be harmful to take this page away from it intentionally. Nyttend (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ludwig von Wallmoden-Gimborn

added a link pointing to Order of Leopold

William I of Württemberg

added a link pointing to Strasburg

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Edits like this break the section links in watchlists and page histories, and as such are unhelpful to other editors. DuncanHill (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your reply on my talk page - and note that you obviously don't care about keeping conversations in one place, if you did you would have replied here. Anyway, your edit did make it harder for editors other than you. And, of course, it is generally regarded as very bad form to reformat other editors' talk page comment without both very good reason and an explanation of that reason made at the time (for example in both the edit summary and in a note to the other editor). Your use of edit summaries is extremely poor, and I would ask you to make a little more effort with them.

Also, you do not own the article - please try to remember that. When editors try to improve it by asking for better referencing you should not attack them for it!

You can regard this as a warning about your "ownership" attitude to other editors.

I don't want to resurrect all the old ANI threads about your own behaviour and that of the editor whose wording you are apparently so intent on keeping but I will if you continue to behave as you have been doing. DuncanHill (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I did not make any demands about where you replied to a usertalk post, please do not repeat your false claim that I did. What I did do was point out an apparent contradiction between what you said and what you did. DuncanHill (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

If I had meant that I did not want you to reply on my talk page then I would have said so. I didn't say so, but did point out the apparent contradiction between your actions combining threads on the article talk page and your actions in choosing to split usertalk conversations between two pages. What I did mean, and say, was that I disagreed with your reply. DuncanHill (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Isaac Ambrose, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DNB. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to British Armed Forces may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the oldest service within the British Armed Forces, the [[Royal Navy]] consists of five arms:<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/ |title=Royal Navey |publisher=royalnavy.mod.uk |

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Would it be ok if I undid the revert to Syrian Civil War that the now topic banned editor did? Or can you? Legacypac (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I may not be entirely clear but it seems that you topic banned me for three months for saying I planned on violating a moratorium which doesn't exist by hold a Request for Comment and that to do so is "disruptive". Is this correct? Would you like to revisit this ban, because I'm rather bewildered. GraniteSand (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding WP:GS/SCW. Though this is a community sanction, the wording is parallel to some Arbcom discretionary sanctions. See some examples of banning moves at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Log of article-level discretionary sanctions. It is accepted that admins can restrict articles and not just specific editors. Notice that four articles were move protected by User:Callanecc. In this AE request an admin banned the initiation of move proposals for Senkaku Islands for one year. Either of these is something you might consider. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The article Y-Gerät has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article is, for all practical purposes, a duplicate of the sub-section Y-Gerät in Battle of the Beams. This article adds no information that is not already contained in that article. A redirect to the above section could be left here.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you are confused. I thought in the second sentence where it says, "The RFC is here:Talk:2014_Iranian-led_intervention_in_Iraq#RFC:_Military_intervention_against_ISIS_2014_in_Iraq" that one might think that the RFC is located Talk:2014_Iranian-led_intervention_in_Iraq#RFC:_Military_intervention_against_ISIS_2014_in_Iraq.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the open ANI. Just to clarify, I will certainly follow the proper RM sequence like I have always done. The only page moves I have made have been to revert single-editor page moves that have violated the agreement of a consensus discussion. I am also committed not to refer to other editors as "hissy-fit, crying, anti-American" [sic] even when another editor persistently and loudly makes the same declamation about me ad infinitum. If you have time in the future, we would always welcome another editor at Iranian-led intervention in Iraq and the associated talk page. Best - DocumentError (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I thought that harv did the same as |ref={{harvid|author|year}}Keith-264 (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering on the possibility of adding an edit on this page as I did on: Talk:Omar Ahmad (American politician):

• On a different topic the main motivation for change relates to national security and the use of terminologies that are less likely to be conducive for attack.

Here's something that I previously wrote at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#United States R US

I'm proposing the above as preferred terms of reference as a friend from the UK and based on the following:

1. Enemies of the United States typically refer to the nation as America.
2. The United States only constitutes one of many countries in the Americas and only about one third of the total population.
3. Amerigo Vespucci was and explorer of South America and the West Indies.
4. Hawaii is arguably better defined as constituting a part of the United States rather than as representing a part of America.
5. The primary reference to the country and is the United States. This is fairly well represented through many of the categories and articles connected to Category:Government in the United States and I would personally propose that this reference may be beneficially applied in other topics as per support from WP:UCRN.
6. The term "United States" conveys a message of unity in specific ownership of a single nation while 50 countries across two continents share the roots of "American" terminologies.
   

Again, enemies of the United States, that I have heard, tend to fixate on the name America and I think that it would be a step towards peace to withdraw politics from use of this terminology. America is a comparatively ambiguous terminology that may be perceived to have been monopolised by the United States. Enemies of America also tend to indiscriminately select targets from amongst the general population of the American people. Amongst other things, this is something that directly contravenes Islamic law. Islamic terrorists act hypocritically in targeting civilians (innocents is a term used). A move to a consistent use of titles with regard to U.S. political and military topics would, I hope, serve to help highlight that hypocrisy. I am no expert on these things but sources such as http://lettertobaghdadi.com/ may be helpful.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi PBS - I'm not sure about this revert. Did you want me to revert the closure entirely (which I don't mind doing if I need to)? The result was redirect. I agree there wasn't consensus for that but it was done boldly so that was the result nonetheless. The close (in this case) reflected the result rather than defining it. If your opinion is still "outstanding" then it shouldn't have been boldly redirected (that should be reverted) and it shouldn't have been closed (that should be reverted too). Thoughts? St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi mate, I'm not sure that clarifies it much. It sounds like you disagree with the result. The result wasn't "keep" because the article wasn't kept, it was redirected. But I didn't redirect it. That was a functional close which I changed later to reflect the result. The "result" was done boldly (which left not much more to discuss) and the nomination itself was withdrawn. It sounds like the result should be "merge" which (as you rightly point out) can be done post-redirect but probably should be done using merge templates. I only closed it because it had been boldly redirected. Reverting the redirect, re-listing it and allowing a merge closure later seems like policy wonkery. But I'm happy to take your advice. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not, by itself, a result. I still don't understand if you disagree with the result or not (which, again, wasn't my result) but reverting from a correction back to the original mistake seems a bit pointless given you seem to think neither possible result applies. Anyway, feel free to change it to whatever you want. I was just going through the log and closing stuff that others should have closed and wanted to understand your revert. Happy to admit it when I don't. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Quite apt! St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edward Sexby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Preston. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

A RfC in which you may be interested has opened here. DocumentError (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

With this edit you closed the conversation, however you did not give a reason and did not sign it. I've been threatened with topic ban by Legacypac on my talk page based on this conversation that I didn't participate in and couldn't read. I expanded the template. I suggest that you sign the closing and give a reason or remove it. I also made a comment below the box agreeing that there should be a RM moratorium. Thx. ~Technophant (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You reverted the expand but failed to either sign or give a reason for the close. I spent almost 15 minutes trying to figure out who closed the discussion and I'm left to my own devices to figure out why. Please at least sign the collapse box.~Technophant (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Technophant, if a certain editor hasn't threatened you with a topic ban you haven't been on WP very long. That's just part of the welcome basket when you edit these topics. When you check-in to the Hilton Maui you get a can of macedamia nuts, when you check-in to the WP IS topic area you get a threat of a topic ban from a certain editor. I've had four myself; I wouldn't sweat it. Come back when he's denounced you as "Anti-American." DocumentError (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I have a question about WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. The instructions there do not say that the notification must be done by an admin. Legacypac's first contact with me (discussed on my talk page) has been hostile, ignoring AGF and suggesting battleground attitude. He has plenty of notices on his talk page already but not this notification. Could you please notify him? Also I closed the RM moratorium discussion and put up a warning. I hope my work is up to snuff and that I didn't overstep my authority. ~Technophant (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

A discussion in which you may be interested [opened here]. - SantiLak (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I want to understand the reason behind your taking issues with "strong ties to the United Kingdom", and desire for an extremely tight definition as such. Please understand that I am not questioning your good faith, only the utility of arguing over such semantics. This terminology is used across the encyclopaedia for different purposes, I quite simply don't understand how you cannot understand what is meant by it. RGloucester — ☎ 21:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye (talk · contribs · logs) has repeatedly reverted or reinserted edits that violate NPOV and consensus. I notified of him of the sanctions, warned him on the talk page the he should not continue to revert, warned him level 3 for disruptive, then level 4 when he did it again. He seems not to get the wp:point. I suggest a block or ban to prevent further disruption.~Technophant (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I took this to ANI.~Technophant (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thanks and that I appreciate the help when it came to reverting a premature archiving. I have now removed it from the archive and added a message about the archiving in the section. Again I appreciate the information and now I will know what to do if something gets archived prematurely again. - SantiLak (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This article could possibly do with some attention. We could move content from English Army about England's military before the Restoration Army was formed? Then have English Army about solely the standing force established after 1660? Before the 16th century, there wasn't a distinction between the naval and land forces, so maybe it makes more sense to cover them both on one article? Alternatively, we could delete it. Thoughts? Rob984 (talk) 11:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

  This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GraniteSand (talk) 05:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at WP:AN#Request for clarification on Syrian Civil War and ISIL sanctions - warning policy. What seems to have happened here is that Template:SCW&ISIL sanctions and Template:SCW&ISIL enforcement have not been updated to make it possible for any editor, as opposed to only administrators, to add what is basically a sanction alert to another editor's talk page. I certainly thought that this had been done and had discussed it with a couple of Admins a while ago. I can't see any reason for this to be an Admin only notice with a different process from general sanctions. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the discussion Callanecc, Bbb23 and I had about this earlier on Callaneccs talk page. Dougweller (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

And I think I've sorted it. We agreed that as with ArbCom alerts any editor can place this notification, but didn't revise the actual notification template page. I've done that now. Sorry to bother you about this although the AN discussion may carry on. Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I am guessing that I may be considered to be the person with most motive to keep open the lengthy thread (with lengthy title): Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality” (See related discussion at #Logical Order in Lead). Just to confirm, if page size becomes a particular problem, I am happy for it to be archived and can propose such if notified of this being a good option. I have recently made some tinkering additions to add to a length that spans about fifth to a quarter of the entire page length. also pinging Corriebertus. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If I can chip in, I think that discussion should remain on the Talk page until the dispute over "jihadist" is settled, however long it is. It is the most important discussion the Talk page has seen in a long time, the AN/I that Gregkaye was taken to recently (which is still not over) centres on it, and the dispute, now being carried on under other headings, is still very much alive on the Talk page. If it has to be archived, it must be properly linked first to the current related sections on the Talk page. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

At Technophant's suggestion I have just made a report on Felino123 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. P123ct1 also advised to refer to you and when I mentioned what had happened advised me to tread carefully. I'd appreciate any advice. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

--82.136.210.153 (talk) 11:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@PBS: I appreciate your recent changing of the heading titles regarding the history of apparent edit warring by Felino123. To get this in context my writing up of this history has been supported by P123ct1 as demonstrated at User talk:Gregkaye#Edit warning. Firstly I've got to say that I am delighted about aspects of the result of this thread. Following Felino123's response I hope to have begun a new stage in relationship with Felino123 with good signs of positive communication at User talk:Felino123#Kudos to you. An issue that I have raised here relates to the thread Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#The word "jihad", criticism and disruption.

The indication, which has been on display to readers for over a week now, contains text such as "Me and most users (with one exception) have made it clear." This is basically a statement to say, despite the fact that my argument related to the desire for qualification to be given to one word, that all editors other than me wanted to have criticism removed from the lead. This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and this would have become increasingly apparent to Felino123 as x/he continually reverted edits of a variety of editors who attempted to return criticism into the lead. I have requested Felino123 to edit this text but to this point this has not happened. In the context of content such as this having been on display for this period of time I find it inappropriate for the edit links and commentary to be left collapsed. The claim is made that I am the one person objecting to criticism in the lead and clear evidence of a variety of editors making attempts to add critical content to the lead has been hidden from sight. In line with WP:TPYES I am happy for relevant content to be altered but object to the collapse of the content. I would appreciate advice on ways forward on this.
The content that I presented reads:

• Revision as of 22:49, 19 October 2014 Felino123 enacts wholesale removal of the second paragraph of the lead complete with its 7 footnotes
• Revision as of 12:10, 20 October 2014 Jason from nyc adds: "Muslims have criticized ISIL’s actions, authority, and theological interpretations." stating, "The lead should summarize "prominent controversies" per WP:LEAD"
• Revision as of 06:47, 21 October 2014 Gregkaye adds "[b]" - efn|Islamic criticism of ISIL has included comment by Sunni scholars that sacrifices of ISIL are "not Jihad at all."< ref name=OpenLetToAlBagh / >.
• Revision as of 12:10, 21 October 2014 Felino123 reverts edits of Jason from nyc and Gregkaye
• Revision as of 16:48, 21 October 2014 Jack Pepa adds: "More than 120 Islamic scholars have indicated ISIS to be Khawarij" to beginning of last para of lead and provides two citations.
• Revision as of 01:07, 22 October 2014 P123ct1 adds: "[b]" - efn|Islamic criticism of ISIL has included comment by Sunni scholars that sacrifices of ISIL are "not Jihad at all."< ref name=OpenLetToAlBagh / >.
• Revision as of 09:55, 24 October 2014 Felino123 reverts edits of Jack Pepa and P123ct1
• Revision as of 08:34, 25 October 2014 P123ct1 adds: "Muslims have criticized ISIL’s actions, authority and theological interpretations." to last para of lead
• Revision as of 08:45, 25 October 2014 P123ct1 adds: "[b]" - efn|Islamic criticism of ISIL has included comment by Sunni scholars that sacrifices of ISIL are "not Jihad at all."< ref name=OpenLetToAlBagh / > and states: "Restored efn footnote (please see Talk page for reasons)".
• Revision as of 15:03, 25 October 2014 Comitus qualifies to: "Some Muslims ..."
• Revision as of 23:44, 25 October 2014 Thegreatmuka amends qualification to: "Many Muslims ..." and states: "Changed "some" to "many" in order to avoid interpretation that "most Muslims do not criticize.""
• Revision as of 13:50, 26 October 2014 Felino123 reverts P123ct1 and removes reference to "Muslims" from lead. ALSO ADDS: a three times cited reference to Israel in opposition. This is despite the fact that Israel's only actual involvement has been the provision of information and that the many of entries of nations that have actual physical involvement are uncited and, in total, there are more participants mentioned than there are citation refs added.
• Revision as of 13:50, 26 October 2014 Felino123 reverted P123ct1 and removed reference to Muslims from lead
• Revision as of 16:25, 26 October 2014 Gregkaye edits and states in notes: "is a Sunni, extremist, unrecognized state and self-proclaimed jihadist caliphate in Iraq and Syria in the Middle East as per talk page" THIS WAS A NEW SUGGESTION OF EDIT
• Revision as of 08:54, 27 October 2014 Felino123 reverts Gregkaye and, for the first time, states "Reverting a disruption"

Compare and contrast!
Please also pay attention to the Israel in opposition issue

Please feel free to refactor any of that last content above and please advise

Thank-you. Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresentation, manipulation of situations to push editing agendas and accusations of defamation

My situation comes in the context of my pushing for edits in the article "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" involving a wish to provide some kind of qualifying statement when Wikipedia uses its voice to declare the group to be jihadist. A very large section of Islam has a view of the Islamic defensive principle of jihad that is very different from the view of jihad held amongst supporters of ISIL.

In the context of this dispute with limited scope, editor Felino123 started the strongly worded thread The word "jihad", criticism and disruption which presented me as being the only editor supporting having criticism of ISIL which both misrepresented me and a commonly supported editing position.

The indication, which has been on display to readers for over a week now, contains text such as "Me and most users (with one exception) have made it clear." This is basically a statement to say, despite the fact that my argument related to the desire for qualification to be given to one word, that all editors other than me wanted to have criticism removed from the lead. This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and this would have become increasingly apparent to Felino123 as x/he continually reverted edits of a variety of editors who attempted to return criticism into the lead. I have requested Felino123 to edit this text but to this point this has not happened. In the context of content such as this having been on display for this period of time I find it inappropriate for the edit links and commentary to be left collapsed. The claim is made that I am the one person objecting to criticism in the lead and clear evidence of a variety of editors making attempts to add critical content to the lead has been hidden from sight. In line with WP:TPYES I am happy for relevant content to be altered but object to the collapse of the content. I would appreciate advice on ways forward on this.
The content that I presented reads:

• Revision as of 22:49, 19 October 2014 Felino123 enacts wholesale removal of the second paragraph of the lead complete with its 7 footnotes
• Revision as of 12:10, 20 October 2014 Jason from nyc adds: "Muslims have criticized ISIL’s actions, authority, and theological interpretations." stating, "The lead should summarize "prominent controversies" per WP:LEAD"
• Revision as of 06:47, 21 October 2014 Gregkaye adds "[b]" - efn|Islamic criticism of ISIL has included comment by Sunni scholars that sacrifices of ISIL are "not Jihad at all."< ref name=OpenLetToAlBagh / >.
• Revision as of 12:10, 21 October 2014 Felino123 reverts edits of Jason from nyc and Gregkaye
• Revision as of 16:48, 21 October 2014 Jack Pepa adds: "More than 120 Islamic scholars have indicated ISIS to be Khawarij" to beginning of last para of lead and provides two citations.
• Revision as of 01:07, 22 October 2014 P123ct1 adds: "[b]" - efn|Islamic criticism of ISIL has included comment by Sunni scholars that sacrifices of ISIL are "not Jihad at all."< ref name=OpenLetToAlBagh / >.
• Revision as of 09:55, 24 October 2014 Felino123 reverts edits of Jack Pepa and P123ct1
• Revision as of 08:34, 25 October 2014 P123ct1 adds: "Muslims have criticized ISIL’s actions, authority and theological interpretations." to last para of lead
• Revision as of 08:45, 25 October 2014 P123ct1 adds: "[b]" - efn|Islamic criticism of ISIL has included comment by Sunni scholars that sacrifices of ISIL are "not Jihad at all."< ref name=OpenLetToAlBagh / > and states: "Restored efn footnote (please see Talk page for reasons)".
• Revision as of 15:03, 25 October 2014 Comitus qualifies to: "Some Muslims ..."
• Revision as of 23:44, 25 October 2014 Thegreatmuka amends qualification to: "Many Muslims ..." and states: "Changed "some" to "many" in order to avoid interpretation that "most Muslims do not criticize.""
• Revision as of 13:50, 26 October 2014 Felino123 reverts P123ct1 and removes reference to "Muslims" from lead. ALSO ADDS: a three times cited reference to Israel in opposition. This is despite the fact that Israel's only actual involvement has been the provision of information and that the many of entries of nations that have actual physical involvement are uncited and, in total, there are more participants mentioned than there are citation refs added.
• Revision as of 13:50, 26 October 2014 Felino123 reverted P123ct1 and removed reference to Muslims from lead
• Revision as of 16:25, 26 October 2014 Gregkaye edits and states in notes: "is a Sunni, extremist, unrecognized state and self-proclaimed jihadist caliphate in Iraq and Syria in the Middle East as per talk page" THIS WAS A NEW SUGGESTION OF EDIT
• Revision as of 08:54, 27 October 2014 Felino123 reverts Gregkaye and, for the first time, states "Reverting a disruption"

Compare and contrast!
Please also pay attention to the Israel in opposition issue

The text is found at Reducing Islamic criticism and highlighting the involvement of Israel which contains the above content and initial responses in a box that PBS I think unjustly collapsed.

In conversation another editor strongly agrees with me about this injustice and this is found in the third paragraph and onwards at User talk:Gregkaye#AN.2FI and next steps.

Some of the responses from Felino123 left me feeling quite encouraged that there might be a person here that I could develop a reasonable relationship with and I initiated a dialogue intitled Kudos to you. In the second paragraph of this dialogue I stated a position of wanting to do something about the initial, '"jihad", criticism and disruption' content but have had no reply.

At the same time this editor has been pushing for the inclusion of Israel on the ISIL opponents list even though Israel does not fit the criteria and has made this addition with the provision of three citations which served to make the inclusion of Israel stand out from the crowd. I ask questions and display legitimate content. For a wide variety of reasons I have pulled away from a POV that I still feel is important but have kept this to the side.

This user habitually responds with comments such as, " And Gregkaye, please don't defame me, I am not the one pushing my POV aggressively." The words defame and defaming appear five times now in the article in response to taking up a 1RR case against the user, following my presentation of the user's edit history and after challenging the Israel entry. Again my approach has been to present content and ask questions and I am met with rhetoric and accusation.

I do not think it fair that a user will not just stick with the arguments but will habitually attack editors.

If intervention is appropriate it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank-you

Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Insertion of late comments into earlier parts of threads on the Talk page is getting out of hand. There has been a batch of them today. It makes discussion hard to follow and is not fair on readers coming to the page to read latest comments, who will mostly likely miss them. I don't know if you can do anything about this as an admin. As you know I have mentioned this several times in discussion about the Talk page length. I have left a note on the Talk page about it but I expect it will be ignored. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have thought of that. This (1) is one, at the beginning of the thread. Here are some diffs of other examples: 2" "3. I make no further comment! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Text is now being altered mid-conversation, making nonsense of later comment here. The chaos on the Talk page grows apace! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I came here to see if any comment had been made to the collapsing threads above and after I had made corrective edits to the last mentioned talk page thread. As mentioned I have felt misrepresented and I felt that the collapse of my reply to the situation was wrong. With everything that was going on I had not initially even been aware of the "Should we add this line to the lead" thread until P123ct1 kindly pinged me. On regular occasion when I have raised straightforward issues of behaviour to Felino123 or have asked questions I have been accused of defaming him/her and have stayed clear. I appreciate that these are late edits. I also did some late multiple edits to the jihad related threads but pinged all relevant parties simultaneously so as to give notification of amendment. (My pinging here is due to a regular habit of not talking behind backs). Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I think Felino123 is unaware of the connotations of the word "defame", as I don't think English is his first language. He does use it a lot in connection with Gregkaye. I nearly posted him a message about WP:LIBEL as a kind of friendly warning, but didn't think it was my place to. I am not too happy about the collapsible thread either, PBS. I know we cannot have open edit-warring on the Talk page, but I was a bit uncomfortable with it for perhaps obvious reasons. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Normally I reply on the talk pages of the person who has contacted me. But in this case I will reply here as more than one editors is involved.

• @P123ct1 I think that (1) is a mistake, and I personally would not do it. But it will not be confusing to other editors. I think (2) and (3) are acceptable. But this is an example why it is better to archive sections more quickly, as such comments are likely to be missed by most editors (and will delay the archiving of the thread for even longer).
• @Gregkaye changing a post once a comment has been made is a no-no and this is explained in WP:REDACTED (part of WP:TALK). So P123ct1 has a right to feel aggrieved over "mid-conversation" changes. Please revisit that edit. Put back the original wording and then strike it through as described in WP:REDACTED and then add a comment in the correct chronological position in the thread stating that you have made a change to the wording. If that seems like too much effort then just revert the edit back to the original wording.

-- PBS (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• There is no need to redact due to agreement at User talk:P123ct1. I hope this meets with your satisfaction. In the whole listing there was a minimal strongly worded content. Given the context I only see a marginal issue in the first line. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This came hours after the an in page proposal was added to the jihadist debate and after it has been positively and rationally debated at: #To ^[b] or not to be - adding qualification to Wikipedia's endorsement of ISIL as jihadist. Debate has mainly been between me and Jason from nyc, P123ct1 initiated a move to try to establish consensus. I clarified my proposal and, in short order, Technophant issued an alternate and dismissively worded proposal. I regard this to be bad faith and disruptive while showing no willingness to let things run their course. (Please consider consider the option to refactor this post or leave it for me to do so. I would naturally ping the people mentioned but don't want to do that on your user page without permission. At your discretion, the pings just need colons and, colons or not, this bracketed text is superfluous. Otherwise it can be left as it is). Thanks Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

User:P123ct1 and myself started WP:Requests for comment/Worldedixor on 12 September. I'm not sure if you've looked at it, but it gives a detailed description of the user's problem behavior and suggested remediations. Instead of taking the opportunity to come to an informal resolution, the user filled the project and talk page with personal attacks and other debris. I started a thread Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Worldedixor#I'm concerned that this RFC/U is getting off track and there was a broad consensus from multiple editors and admins to put forth a topic ban. However, Wolrdedixor stopped editing for a while and nobody took any action. Now that "WE" is back, and continuing his problematic behavior, I'm requesting that you evaluate this and take this to the noticeboard for a binding decision.~Technophant (talk) 04:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Technophant and Worldedixor I think it would help if you reread Wikipedia:Etiquette. I have now read the WP:Requests for comment/Worldedixor in detail. I had started previously but given up because the "Article talk page abuses" were not arranged as diffs and were difficult to follow. While it is clear that Worldedixor has made some inappropriate postings and at times Worldedixor's tone is less than friendly, I do not think that there was anything there that needed an RfC/U. I would agree that now there has been a RfC/U Worldedixor would do well to consider the "Desired outcome" as there is nothing there that with certain reasonable qualifications any editor would not agree to do.

There is a section in the Terrorism article called "Pejorative use", in it is a long quote that starts "On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term." If one rewrites this quote substituting the word "disruption" for "terrorism" one gets:

On one point, at least, everyone agrees: disruption on Wikipedia is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to [snip] those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore.

You have to look at yourselves and your motives. Try to take a step back and look at the page as if you were an actor in one of Berthold Brecht's plays (see Brecht-Acting-Techniques). Would the actions of the disruptive editor be seen as such by a third party? Are you labelling their forthright behaviour disruptive, because it is more disruptive than your own behaviour (or that of others with whom you agree), or because it allows you an approach to have them silenced?

The simplest way to help you see the situation as an outsider would is to look at their edits and see if they have broken specific editing rules such as the 1RR or 3RR. On talk pages don't look for vague breaches of guidelines, but specific sentences that breach specific guidelines, as described in guidelines such as WP:TALK, WP:DISRUPTION or WP:COURTESY. If so then raise it on their talk pages and if that fails to resolve the issue then by all means raise it with me or take it to AN/I. But realise that administrative action can boomerang:

@Technophant One point that concerned me is on the talk page of the RfC/U where it was mentioned that off Wikipedia discussions had taken place. Please see the guidance about this: Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building pitfalls and errors.

-- PBS (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi PBS. Thank you. I am too busy to contribute to Wikipedia let alone spend valuable time pointing out the many instances of Technophant's conduct that is inconsistent with policy. Time will tell all, and so will other editors. However, you seem to have a good handle of what he has been up to. As a courteous gesture to you personally, I will make a quick minor edit to the article, and go back to my enjoyable life. Worldedixor (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

PBS, you must have read the comments from the admins on the Talk page in the RfC/U. Since then some of the diffs seem to have gone awry. I would point out again that for over a month I was harassed and attacked almost daily on the ISIS Talk page by this editor, despite my many attempts at reconciliation. The disruption on the Talk page was very noticeable, as a cursory glance through it will show. I steadfastly resisted taking the editor to AN/I, but now think I should have done. Dougweller was the admin on the page at the time if you ever need more background. .

The "off-Wikipedia discussions" you mention, as described very carefully by me in the RfC/U, were some email exchanges with Technophant over the RfC/U once Technophant had brought it. I knew nothing about the RfC/U until it was put in train by Technophant and I needed his guidance on how to fill in the different parts.

There has been more harassment from this editor on Gregkaye's AN/I recently, after a lull of about a month, which I am not sure you are aware of, and some sniping on the ISIS Talk page in the past week. This saga is far from over. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This is always the case. They come as a "tag team" and a lynch mob with their "local" consensus of a (very) small number of email pals to attack me just to keep me away from Wikipedia. They do not attack as individuals, but rather they coordinate their attacks. The latest being P123ct1 falsely claiming that an IP accusing her of WP:OWN of being me (without naming me) and running her mouth to rally her troops [[4]]. I will employ restraint and not point out her (many) tactics of "doing something and then accusing me of doing it" but I will give this example [5]. Talking about a dossier [[6]]. I will simply ask her to read WP:HA#NOT, especially "Neither is tracking a user's contributions for policy violations". At the ANI against Gregkaye, I did not even track her, it was right there under everyone's nose, and I did point out what she did which was inconsistent with policy. It is her falsely accusing me of personally attacking her that is a policy violation. As far as my "article" edits, they speak for themselves. I got encouragement from PBS' words today, but now P123ct1 took it all away. Also, she just confronted me on my one "minor" edit to the IS article [7]. Instead of an edit war, I just let it be. She also attacked me by calling me names at [8]. Also, I am not even sure how consistent is her unfathomable conduct here [9] is with policy. My problem is I don't have a lot of free time on my hand. I am out of here. Worldedixor (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Worldedixor: I will not take any more WP:HOUND and WP:PA, and worse, from you. It is a simple as that. I was patient before, but no longer. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me of what you do to me, and read this: "However, there is an endemic problem on Wikipedia of giving "harassment" a much broader and inaccurate meaning which encompasses." Also, please stop dragging me back into your Rehash and Battleground arena, every time I go away to avoid it. Worldedixor (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Worldedixor: As usual, you are selective in what you present. You know you were reprimanded by an admin for your behaviour on the AN/I. I would not have raised this had you not been selective. You cannot expect your WP:PA behaviour whenever you reappear not to have repercussions. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Stop your Battleground antics and allow this unbiased admin to objectively assess your conduct today. I have left all the "glory" of editing that article to you and your email pal long ago. Also, changing your edit after I had responded as you have done more than once, and like you did now [10] is inconsistent with policy. This is a verifiable fact. Don't label it an attack. Finally, you and your email pal should read WP:ADMINSHOP as it is inconsistent with policy, and you should not bite a WP:NEWCOMER just because they made an observation of your conduct. Have a good night and enjoy life. Worldedixor (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Yikes! I now know how my mother felt when she got mad at me and my sister fighting. Sadly, I've seem the progression of conflict between these two editors and P123ct1 has been always been patient and civil and does not deserve these attacks. As you can see in the RFC/U, WE has responds to everything in the lower section of the pyramid, just stopping short of outright name-calling. ~Technophant (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Technophant is not an unbiased "peacemaker" in this. He is P123ct1's email pal. As I stated above, this is always the case. They come as a "tag team" and a lynch mob to drag me to their WP:BATTLEGROUND rather than communicate as individual editors. This is why I have decided to walk away from any and all edit conflict to avoid a potential WP:EW with them not even revert their edits even though they always confront my "minimal" number of well sourced edits. It is just not worth it. I don't have the time to list all incidents of his conduct that is inconsistent with policy, but I don't need to. This unbiased admin, PBS, has seen through the cloud screens, and has stated facts about the "unjustified" RFC for which, in my opinion, Technophant has canvassed in bad faith and in sheer violation of policy WP:CANVASS. Also, his larger than life diagram here and accusations, to me, sound like a personal attack. I did not call him or P123ct1 names. Enough WP:REHASH and vindictiveness already. I have shown a lot of restraint today adhering to policy even after P123ct1's false accusation and personal attack as stated above and as can be seen here [11] (without naming me). They should not be allowed to push me. Worldedixor (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• multiple (edit conflict)s: As a response to that I can say that yes we talk about you via email and do have coordinated the planning of our response (the RFC/U) by email. I know it's not ideal, however what's done is done. I'm here because I checked your contribs and to see where you have gone next. We aren't a "tag-team" of editors on the ISIL page, in fact we are in direct opposition in some recent issues there and I don't think a lynch-mob can consists of just two people. I can't speak for P123, however I have not used email to discuss you with any other editor off-wiki. We both think you are a good editor and have made some solid contributions, and could helpful, esp. with your knowledge of Arabic. We decided on the RFC/U as the kindest, gentlest route of trying to help you get back on track without feeling persecuted, however you decided the outcome of that by failing to respond to any of the valid issues presented. (BTW: the list of talk page transgressions were maybe half put together by myself, and the rest by other editors.) You fail to see that your fate is in your own hands and this all can be turned around by a either an about-face in attitude, or just staying away from the articles (and editors) where your attitude and behavior has been deemed intolerable. Also, Worldedixor continually claims that he is following policy but is habitually in violation of multiple guidelines and expected community norms, ie. civility, Talk, and NPA...~Technophant (talk) 03:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I have just added what I think is a fair question at: To [b] or not to be - adding qualification to Wikipedia's endorsement of ISIL as jihadist. I have edited it but it has time stamp 14:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC). Is this OK? Otherwise should I move it, adjust it, add heading or other? Thanks Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is the diff with total of four edits. Am also pinging @Felino123:. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

  This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Closure review of RfC on general sanctions". Thank you.