user talk:gregkaye

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Merry Christmas


This user wishes you a very Merry Christmas.



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

SPI FYI[edit]

. and . Aslo, see Islamic extremism. He may have had a point. ~ P-123 (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 Face-smile.svg Thank you I have never had objection to what @Mohammed al-Bukhari: said but with the deceitful way in which the information was presented and his refusal to communicate. My view is that while someone is responding to reason then dialogue may work. Sadly this turned out not to be the case. Comment added here. gregkaye 15:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
P-123 *sigh*. Having said that, this page on "Doctrines of the Khawarij and articles" is narrated by "Al-Bukhari". A relative? GregKaye 16:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Probably a common Muslim name. ~ P-123 (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I am touched by your generosity, Greg, in view of the latest trouble. I accept that AGF gesture as I don't think sarcasm is in your nature. Face-smile.svg I wish I could redact much of what I said yesterday. Face-smile.svg You were very patient. ~ P-123 (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  • P-123 You honestly don't realise how much that means to me, eyes half full with tears. Please believe me that I try my best to a significant extent to resolve issues with editors on talk pages before adding content to article pages. I also hope for your forgiveness for my occasional over reactions to issues in the past. Sometimes I can grab the wrong stick. I don't pretend to be undamaged in life and, while not claiming to be socially functional in all ways, shouldn't make excuses either. Signedzzz interpreted my actions a being patronising and often fail to make a good impression. I often look at my edits and know that there is something wrong but don't know how to get things right. Editing on my page will likely remain hazardous, I cannot lie, but, believe me, you mean a lot to me. I have also taken the liberty of amending your message above - in hope. GregKaye 19:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course. I think we are both the same, can over-react and get hold of the wrong end of the stick sometimes, and I do admit to having a short fuse. You never struck me as patronising on the TP and your editing always looks fine to me, apart from the occasional clumsy wording in the text, but I can be guilty of that as well sometimes. You and a couple of other editors have the best manners on the TP, IMO. Felt quite forlorn yesterday after "cutting you off". New start? Face-smile.svg ~ P-123 (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
P-123 Ring out the old, ring in the new, Ring, happy bells, across the snow, or something like that. I am always happy to turn over a new leaf but I remain the same person. Please don't have any hopes of change. GregKaye 20:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editor[edit]

This editor has been behaving badly recently, as you noted in the edit summary. He has been here before! How can he be stopped this time? ~ P-123 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

  • User:Atifabbasi8 Your disruption is noted by a number of editors and action may be taken at any time. Whatever ideology you hold I hope that it includes something regarding respect for establishment. Please respond. 02:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
    • P-123 which Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard do you think is most relevant? I was thinking vandalism. User:Atifabbasi8 how would you define your edits? GregKaye 03:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Is there a vandalism noticeboard? What about the edit-warrimg noticeboard? It is always the same few edits, isn't it? ~ P-123 (talk) 09:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
        • The notice boards are listed in my link above. those edits and a lot more stuff highlighted on the user TP. GregKaye 09:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Sorry, didn't see the highlighting. If it shows as dark blue as it sometimes does on my screen, it is almost indistinguishable from ordinary text so I miss seeing the links. He has broken the 1RR once, so it is mostly editing against consensus. I see you have already mentioned him at AN/I where Legacypac talks about his creation of articles. I think edit-warring is the best grounds. ~ P-123 (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Gas giants[edit]

Does this clarify things (I'm assuming from the lack of response on your part that you haven't read it)? And maybe you'd like to strike through your vote at Talk:Gas giant#Requested_move_III to be sure? --JorisvS (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

JorisvS I have very happily struck my oppose. I just wanted to ask you about the option mentioned. Neptune is 80 ± 3.2% hydrogen (H2) and 19 ± 3.2% helium (He). They are gas giants and giant planets. If it were my effort going into it, which it isn't, I would use the base name Gas giant. The other thing I would do it try to merge Ice giant to the Giant planet article but this is your baby. Enjoy. GregKaye 14:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The composition in the infobox is of its atmosphere. Uranus and Neptune have significant hydrogen–helium atmospheres, but their bulk composition is ices. That's where the difference with the gas giants lies: the gas giants' a bulk is composed of hydrogen and helium. --JorisvS (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
JorisvS Face-smile.svg Thank you you make me think. The atmosphere is ~99% hydrogen and helium. I don't know of estimates to say how big the core is but the atmosphere would be super dense further in as very soupy gas. I also admit to the fact that I may not have a right view on this. See: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/233047/giant-planet They don't have either of the other two articles. I really appreciate your passion. Many other info providers talk of ice giants and I don't think there is a right choice whether to develop all the articles or not. I only think that, if an Ice giant article remains then there would be a need for a gas giant article as well. GregKaye 15:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Always a pleasure. Wikipedia tends to incorporate new information and new insights more quickly than a traditional encyclopedia like Britannica, because of its very design. The Neptune article says that Neptune's (hydrogen–helium) atmosphere is estimated to be 5–10% of its mass (some 0.8–1.7 M) , whereas its icy mantle is estimated to be 10–15 M, and its metal–silicate core at 1.2 M. This shows what it means to be an ice giant. --JorisvS (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
JorisvS quite so but its an Ice giant composed of I guess 70-80+% gas. I suspect that giant planets throughout the universe are generally more gassy than icy. This will especially be the case of near orbits of exo planets within which water would boil. GregKaye 16:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The phase of most the matter by far is a supercritical fluid at the high temperatures and pressures involved. "Ice" in astronomy means the volatiles such as water, methane, ammonia, etc., regardless of the phase it is in. "Gas" means only hydrogen and helium, again regardless of the phase it is in. --JorisvS (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
JorisvS Doh, again thanks Face-smile.svg GregKaye 17:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Small point[edit]

I saw Mhhossein's remarks in the "Lead" thread on the main Talk page and then yours on their Talk page just now. When you say there "I was presented by the same editor... ", you mean Felino, don't you? If so, can you word it so that it does not look like me, please? I think you must be referring to the edit-warring by Felino there, but I can't remember the details that far back! It really is a small point and don't want to make an issue of it. :) ~ P-123 (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC) .

P-123 Doh. GregKaye 17:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg ~ P-123 (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


Invitation Regarding Reliable Sources[edit]

Given your recent activity on the talk page of Identifying reliable sources, I am inviting you to participate in the discussion I started in regard to establishing a prima facia case for verifiable sources if it is has met and maintained the standards for inclusion in Google News.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

May know more about you?[edit]

Hey, I'd like to know more about you (of course if it's possible). You are a good colleague and editor. Mhhossein (talk) 05:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Mhhossein I am a by very nature a questioner with a joke long running between myself and P-123 that I would argue against "the cat sat on the mat". These days I am agnostic. i find it hard to discount the vastly improbable marvels of natural science without some kind of guiding intelligence. I have a hunch that paradox may have been somehow in the generation of existence and that an intelligence within existence may somehow have been able to generate a beginning of existence. That's paradox. Maybe that is God. Maybe its us within some super developed format. Maybe its the beings that we (or another form of life) genetically or technologically create in the future. (maybe this gives an idea of the things I think about. However I find it hard to believe in a God/god that is both loving and powerful and who has a special place for humanity in her or his heart.
I used to be a part of a highly committed christian group, wanted to find answers, studied Hebrew, went to synagogue, wrote on Genesis, went to Israel (five years total) and India, with Israelis, (one year). My interpretation of Genesis insisted on the idea that God had interventionist power following creation and, I looked around, and (while acknowledging that injustice is just a factor in a wonderful world of sunsets and the like) decided that traditional views on God were not the answer I was looking for.
This has all been a big part of what I am. I have great interest and respect for doctrines and feel very strongly regarding their misrepresentation. On the talk page I tend to talk about 'SIL, Daesh or similar and, in one small side of things, feel that their lack of representation of Islam should be highlighted.
I am an electrician but spend much my time on Wikipedia Face-smile.svg. GregKaye 06:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
To be frank, as a non-native speaker of English, I should read it 2 times or more to get exactly what you mean! However I know you better now. Thanks for your response. Btw, I'm a metallurgist! Mhhossein (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Mhhossein I have a friend that does electro plating. Your English seems excellent. A problem may also be that I don't always write so well. More info on me is on my User page. The initial content is just playful stuff. I've also just looked at your User page too and had previously just read a discussion on your TP. Do you do much in the Fa Wikipedia? GregKaye 06:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I did my final thesis for taking MSc degree in the electroplating field. In fact, I manufactured a nano-composite coating. That's interesting to hear my English is good! I don't contribute in Fa regularly and like it here much more! Mhhossein (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014[edit]

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

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

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. LorChat 22:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Edits on my Talk page[edit]

You are tempting me to ask for a WP:IBAN. ~ P-123 (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

  • P-123 On what point do you disagree? GregKaye 22:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me while I make a totally unsolicited interjection. You're both clearly smart people and you've both, in concert, made tremendously productive changes to the Islamic State (excuse me, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) article. As a matter of fact, your symbiotic collaboration was rather frustrating to my own desires on that page. A cursory review of your interactions didn't reveal anything to me that would suggest the need for an IBAN. In fact, you two seem to have mutually supported a lot of quality work despite some inevitable stress associated with the type of work you two do. The things you have done together far outweight your disagreemetns and so I'd urge you to just let it go. Maybe take a break. Just don't let the stress of all of it get the better of you both. Cheers guys. GraniteSand (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

  • GraniteSand Face-smile.svg Thank you for your thoughtful response. I will add that the two of us have engaged in a lot of dialogue and that everything needs to be considered in context. Thank you also to the reference to a great deal of collaborative work but any editor can apply for what they like. I have presented content on a User talk page in regard to Article talk page activity and this was done for the editors personal consideration. My hope is that this matter is now closed. My preference is for User page dialogue in cases where this may be proven to work. In the mean time I am considering archiving this thread. (add: In the mean time I am considering archiving this thread on the basis that this may be the diplomatic thing to do). GregKaye 08:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Please do not refactor my Talk page, it is gross interference. I needed two versions of that message, one annotated and one not. I may bring this up. ~ P-123 (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
P-123 It would have been a kindness if you had noted that my refactoring of your talk page did not extended beyond your refactoring of my edit. Again I ask, if you are to present accusation (in this case through an implication of wrongdoing), please present diffs. As you know, the context was of edits, here, here, here, here and here. My refactoring was enacted here after which you deleted the thread here. GregKaye 09:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Unread. ~ P-123 (talk) 09:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
P-123 You did not provide, "two versions of that message, one annotated and one not." You did not go beyond a refactoring of my edit. In such a situation I would have no objection to you adding any relevant comments in sequence or at any appropriate point but please leave other editors contents in the form that the editor has presented. If you want to raise issue, then do so. GregKaye 09:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Unread. ~ P-123 (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Concerns[edit]

As you know I have been very concerned about your conduct on the Talk page with regard to some of the editing in the article for a very long time. The conflict between this and our otherwise good working relationship until recently has always put an enormous strain on me which you may not be aware of. I am afraid your latest aggression was the last straw and from now on I will be putting the article first. This is to inform you that I have added my concern to Anastaisis' here. I am sorry it has come to this. ~ P-123 (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

My concerns relate to what I interpret to be dramatic changes of approach that I consider you to have taken at various times. Just a short time ago you made this edit stating:
"==Thanks==
I am touched by your generosity, Greg, in view of the latest trouble. I accept that AGF gesture as I don't think sarcasm is in your nature. Face-smile.svg I wish I could redact much of what I said yesterday. Face-sad.svg You were very patient. ~ P-123 (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)"
Towards the end of a greatly protracted Wikipedia saga recently archived (with your thanks received for the archival) I ended by saying, "It would be appreciated if you tried to understand why I find your recent actions on the talk:ISIL so baffling". You responded, shortly after the edit above, with the gratefully received reply, "I think I do now".
When I am in the wrong, as you know, I admit it. Since your placement of the thread above you withdrew this content.
Please be aware that you may not be the only editor to reach a "last straw" type situation.
In regard to the above thread you deleted the "Sovereign state" thread from your talk page which had its last appearance here, yet, I think it was to your credit that you refactored your related Article talk page contributions here. Sincerely, thank-you for those changes made.
I have made attempts to tackle issues privately where possible. The issues raised with regard to your recent edits were: WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:INDCRIT. I asked a question above, "On what point do you disagree?" Beyond your redaction of talk page content no answer was given. GregKaye 15:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The content placed here has been transferred to Legacypac's talk page as irrelevant to this discussion. P-123 you have posted here about your uncited concerns about my "conduct on the Talk page with regard to some of the editing in the article for a very long time." One thing at a time. If you want to discuss issues that concern me I will be happy to hear. You were recently threatening an interaction ban. GregKaye 22:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Breathtaking disingenuity! You have known for a very long time exactly why I have found your conduct with regard to some editing questionable. I have never made any secret of it, either to you here or on the Talk page, and you know it. I have no more time or patience for your interminable analyses of every word I say, it is beyond a joke now! I hope the eavesdroppers are enjoying this, I certainly am. Twisting the tail can be fun! P-123 (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Worldedixor repeatedly described you as "vindictive". I defended you. You also have failed to justify your accusations yet you continue to WP:hound. I am the same person to whom you recently gave a barnstar of integrity. It's really up to you how deep a hole you dig for yourself. GregKaye 23:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Just hurry up and hug and make up LorChat 23:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Lor its out of my hands but thanks. GregKaye 23:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I want to make something clear[edit]

Anyone has the right to walk away from a discussion, and move on. Your discussion with P-123 was civil yes, but when they wanted to walk away, you clearly did not let them. If they want to discuss it, discuss it! But if they just want to stop discussing it, and move on to other topics, then let them! Happy editing, just keep this point in mind. LorChat 02:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

As this clearly shows, they had been requesting for the discussion to stop. Look, when the discussion stops, the discussion stops. Unless it's an urgent matter which needs to be dealt with quickly, i see no reason why they did not have the right to stop that discussion, walk away, and move on. LorChat 02:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
User:Lor I have been accused of concerning "conduct on the Talk page with regard to some of the editing in the article for a very long time", "Breathtaking disingenuity", "conduct with regard to some editing questionable" and "analyses of every word I say". Then when the comment "I hope the eavesdroppers are enjoying this, I certainly am. Twisting the tail can be fun!" the excuse is "I was provoked". None of this at any point is given any substantiation. How is it right that an editor can come to a talk page without substantiation present insults and then demand silence as a condition that they walk away? GregKaye 02:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
It's a matter of only being human. In my honest opinion, it wasn't their fault. Everyone has breaking points where they can't keep their 'cool' of sorts. They have now refactored it, taken it back, and said sorry basically. LorChat 02:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Lor, I personally think its a matter of not making accusation without substantiation. This has been a very long running issue and honestly I have tried my best. I invite you to read as much of the ISIL and other talk pages as you want. The core justification I am convinced is unfounded. Nothing is pointed to. It just goes on and on and I feel helpless. I ask for qualification and nothing ever comes. GregKaye 02:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, you don't have to work in the article in question by any means. But due to the very debatable nature of it I would not necessarily suggest it LorChat 02:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Please Lor is it possible for the accusations to stop? I have asked repeatedly for this to happen directly. I have asked if there are issues or instances that can be discussed.
Throughout the discussion I have felt extremely pushed. I was not "enjoying this". The reason I did not stop the discussion was that the issue was not resolved. GregKaye 03:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

Erdbeerteller01.jpg .. P-123 (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 Please, I would prefer an end to the accusation without substantiation. Can you agree? GregKaye 03:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I have thought about what you said about me being vindictive, as I was quite shocked by it. If I am completely honest, I have to admit to it, in the last few days. (I still insist I never felt this way about WE.) I wanted to hit back after being as I saw it accused injustly of some things, but I went too far and apologise. I also felt harried by the questioning of my every word, so I harried in return. You do not see that you harry sometimes, you see it as wanting answers to questions. I have always genuinely found it puzzling why you need to ask the questions, as the answers to me are nearly always blatantly obvious and cannot understand why you cannot see them. I now think your questions are not disingenuous and that you really cannot see it. Your constant questioning of everything is in your nature and mostly that is a good thing, but it can be trying sometimes. Yesterday I completely lost it as I felt goaded too far by the perpetual questions and the remonstrations. I hope we understand each other better now. Please be reassured that I bear no grudges and harbour no ill feelings over this. P-123 (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I have a question about "pro-ISIL" on the Talk page. Hope you can answer it. It may help you, because I suspect some editors may be accusing you falsely of being anti-ISIL. I began to see this after we spoke about it the other day. Face-smile.svg ~ P-123 (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
P-123 Re: yes of course. I have got to say this because I have been stewing on it all day. Why did this take so fucking long? I really think It would be good for you to ask yourself this. Again and again I have asked this one thing. I have initiated whole threads with you to try to achieve resolution. You have left me frustrated with claims of past wrongs, POV and anti-ISIL leanings, but its the wrongs where you seemed most to want, as I see it, to keep me on a hook. It is also this that I see as a parallel to a vindictive side of personality. Of course you have other sides as well but out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks.
On anti-ISIL I will be adding pretty scathing comment on the use of the prejudice and discrimination referenced Wikipedia neologism. I am about to have dinner (sausages) but, as always, will let you know in advance of content. I do not enjoy the humiliation of others and will delete related content to anti-ISIL content on my talk page. GregKaye 18:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Am adding this in, Greg, before I read your next: Re "anti-ISIL", I had already made up my mind that if any editor starting attacking you on this, I would warn them off. You have to believe me on this. I think you can be as scathing as you like, given the remarks you have had on it, (especially me. Face-sad.svg ) I think people need to realise where you are coming from on POV/NPOV, or "anti-ISIL" should I say, as it is less obvious than first meets the eye. I think I understand it now.
I am sorry to have put you through it, Greg, I really am. I did sense something like that today and felt guilty. I ran amok yesterday, I was reckless. I was out of my mind with frustration. Thinking about it today, it was like two cats fighting and chasing each other down alleyways, pausing now and then, spitting and caterwauling, knocking things over, fur standing on end (on different usertalk pages!) Though at least I think the onlookers realise that basically we get on well. On the questions, I had no idea getting answers was so important to you, though had I had stopped, I would probably have divined it from the way you were asking them. One thing I am clear on, I never intended to keep you on a hook, about anything. I am not like that. I don't like to torture or taunt and hate people who do that. It seems cruel and underhanded to me. It is a pity online communication cuts out all the visual cues that help one to assess the other person. It is a real problem. Also, we had gone through all those things before and I simply couldn't understand why you wanted it repeated. It was only going to be more of the same, nothing new., though you weren't to know that I suppose, and that is the crux of it, isn't it? But that is why I was so irritable about answering questions in detail. I will keep off criticism unless I can justify it to you directly in future. I am pretty tired of the constant battles on the ISIS page and yesterday was a real crisis point. Could go on, but that is perhaps enough. I think we are harmonious on the main Talk page again, aren't we?
Don't know why I got a half-barnstar. Felt a fraud, as I don't think I deserved it, as I didn't walk away – that only came with Lor metaphorically throwing a pan of water on us both to stop the fighting. Face-sad.svg
I hope you don't think I was being frivolous in those descriptions – was hoping to cheer you up a little. Hope you are in better spirits tomorrow, Greg. Face-smile.svg ~ P-123 (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
P-123 On harried: This is my perspective. I am not litigious. I try to resolve issues with editors in often subtle ways through talk page intervention and you have seen this with efforts with Technophant and Felino. When I get into discussion with you however the discussion goes on and on to, for me, an exhausting extent. Then I make my edit on the article talk page and then you see the point. I can't cope with this. I know it is perhaps a weakness but I have got short on patience in various situations. I didn't want to get into another pointless argument but, through my loss of patience, we still got into pointless arguments.
P-123 Anti-ISIL is basically a term stating discriminatory POV. It indicates prejudice and it invites people to defend. This is your usage on your user page, "Do you mean editors who are anti-ISIL are spoiling the article? In my opinion at the moment the article is not always spoken in a neutral voice, which is against one of Wikipedia's main policies in WP:FIVEPILLARS. Remember you can add your voice to the Talk page discussions on anything and if you do not agree with what is said there you must speak up. It doesn't matter if you have not followed all the discussion..." I take this as an encouragement to confrontation under a discriminatory banner. In the article talk page you have raised a question and yet, even when the spotlight is clearly on you as the major initiator of the phrase, you give no answers. I think it very likely that editors saw the anti-ISIL references repeatedly used and just came up with an opposite. I am really unsure of your motives in starting this thread, for not presenting information but pushing for information from others. Please consider whether the use of the term has a positive effect on the collegiate nature of the talk page.
On another point I wonder whether you would have got to your "of course" in a context in which I had not developed the perspective of situations as mentioned or if admins were not involved. GregKaye 20:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 No, I don't think that you have suddenly switched. The great things that I see and continue to see in you stand. The last time I edited this page it looked like this. In my response I was careful to say "Of course you have other sides as well ..." and "side of personality". I acknowledge your many strengths. Even in a context of pressure I acknowledged you as a "phenomenal editor". I hold to that as well and perhaps I should have written more about this in my content above and am sorry that I didn't. Amongst other things I have always appreciated your questions. You have raised issue of ad hominem and, as with all the things you say, I will seriously take this into consideration. We have had deep and productive discussions.

(Points that I have raised raised with you have not, as far as I remember, been questions. They have been comments on entries on the article talk page that I have regarded to have unjustified content or bias (I'm looking for the right word but am tired) presentation. The reference to consensus was one example).

I am considering collapsing this conversation up to the point of my "On anti-ISIL.." statement in my second post and archiving this page as I think that this may be the best diplomatic way forward. I would certainly appreciate comment on any reason that this would not be beneficial. I made a mistake in not splitting the thread with regard to the why did it take so long and the anti-ISIL contents and should have allowed these contents to develop separately. If I do collapse content I will be more than happy for contents and response to the why did it take so long issue to be moved into the uncollapsed area of text. Lor, it may be appropriate to decide with P-123 whether the your unilateral collapse in content is for the best. Prior to the placement of an IBAN I think that P-123 has a right to speak in all cases.

I have really wanted to get the issue sorted out regarding the bringing up of uncited accusations. Progress seemed to have been made on this when I dedicated a thread to this and then, in my perception, things slipped back. In this context I raised the question "Why did this take so fucking long?" I also raised question (raised indirectly due to my bad writing) as to 'whether you would have got to your "of course" in a context in which I had not developed the perspective of situations as mentioned or if admins were not involved.' This was another thing that I wanted you to consider. You have done so and have given your answer. We have had a long history of deep discussion related to motive related issues and, at this point, I consider this to be in order. We have a history in which you have come back again and again to the presentation of uncited accusations. I want this to stop and permanently. On a personal basis I request that you give thought to any reason for your presentation of accusation and interference in this way. As I say I want it to stop. If the only way that this can happen is through an IBAN then so be it. Despite their regularly exhausting nature I have valued many aspects of our communications. Yes I have lost patience in regard to various issues. Yes I have lost trust. "Test everything and hold on to the good". I am sure that a lot of good with regard to continuance of our communications remains.

I am open to rebuilding.

GregKaye 04:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Forget the IBAN, not needed if we can keep civil. I want no more criticism of the other from either us, please. Yes, they were comments more than questions. No more deep questioning, please, as it drives me to distraction and you know what happens then. No more long exchanges either, please - the length of threads was getting out of hand. If you interpret comments as accusations, the communication will have to stop. Constant surveillance and unilateral closing of discussion, i.e. policing, (not by you ) I find intolerable. I have lost patience as well and will find it hard to communicate without mutual trust, so you will have to bear with that. I am not interested in rebuilding but will not refuse contact. P-123 (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
General statement on my approach If there are truths that I think need to be mentioned related to article talk page activity then I will mention them. I would prefer to broach issues on User talk pages so as to avoid embarrassment and potential conflict in a more public arena. This is still not ideal as offending content may be left on public display for an additional period of time remaining unchallenged but, in my view, this may often be better than raising the issue in public display. GregKaye 19:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Refactoring[edit]

"I have never made any secret of it, either to you here or on the Talk page, and you know it. I have no more time or patience for your interminable analyses of every word I say, it is beyond a joke now! I hope the eavesdroppers are enjoying this, I certainly am. Twisting the tail can be fun! P-123 (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

You have refactored my comments. Please restore [Sorry, I was provoked.] which I added after my struck out comment. You realise your deletion is censorship, don't you? Any passer-by might think you struck out the comment. That I did it and added an apology is lost by your refactoring. What does that do for my reputation? ~ P-123 (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I asked Lor if he would deal with this discreetly with you to avoid further confrontation. ~ P-123 (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
P-123 Yes I do. I deleted that content here with explanation "Please don't leave an accusation when I don't even have a chance to answer." The thread, to all intents and purposes had been shut down. As I see it, this was censorship in the context of censorship. An action that I am willing to take, prior to intervention of Lor or through dispute resolution, is to add a note to the struck text to say that I had refactored it and to supply a link to any explanation of the context of the struck text that you want to give. I hope that this content would be cited. This would also permit a situation in which I would be given fair opportunity to respond.
I don't agree with a "no holds barred" approach. I don't consider this to be "mirrored activity".
Not for my benefit but I am thinking of archiving the content on this page in any case. GregKaye 05:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand most of that. However you do it please ensure my words are visible next to my struck out comment. Do not complicate a simple request. This is censorship and I am once again surprised at you. If you were the person I thought you were, you would have apologized and done it immediately. You may have seen my note to Lor about this. Clearly I misjudged you, again. ~ P-123 (talk) 08:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
P-123 I think that you should try to understand. I am sick to death of your uncited accusations. You even gave a direct claim to my guilt following the word sorry. You claim that you were provoked. Present your case. This all relates to some truths that I mentioned relating to an edit of yours on talk:ISIL. I then asked you, "On what point do you disagree?" You gave and continue to give no answer. GregKaye 18:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Then silence is best. There is a reason for my not answering your questions. I will not engage in any more long-winded interminable analyses of things I have said with accompanying remonstrations and requests for justification and reasons for (often imagined) accusations. If editors cannot speak frankly with each other, about their edits or the way they conduct themselves, they may as well give up. The ISIS page is not a tea-party. If you cannot take the rough and tumble of criticism, you should not be editing on a page like ISIS. Have I asked Legacypac for chapter and verse explanation for and justification of every critical remark he has made of me? Of course not. It is to be expected when strong-minded editors disagree. It isn't pleasant, but you have to get on with it and take it in your stride. O-v-e-r a-n-d o-u-t. P-123 (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Then don't engage. If I see things I don't agree with I can comment. You then have the option to either reply or not. I have the same option in response. We have been through this. If its in relation general article issues or similar then you can always delete. Nobody is above the following of guidelines. Nobody is beyond fair criticism. GregKaye 03:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

No nation recognises ...[edit]

On the Talk page under this heading I mentioned getting RS citations for countries that have said they do not recognise ISIS as a sovereign state, to back up the sentence. By that I mean reliable media sources that have reported this. I asked how could these be found. Can you let me know how to Google for this as I have never done this before. What search terms should be used? I did not want to give you the task though you are good at it. I am determined to sort out that uncited sentence as it has been a problem for a long time, because of WP:OR. Thanks. P-123 (talk) 11:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Why are you determined to do this? Please take another look at the "logical fallacy argument logically only goes so far" text in the thread. GregKaye 18:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Legacypac has found a good citation so you can forget my request. The issue is closed now we have suitable citations. P-123 (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how singular citations back up the sentence but don't object to their use. GregKaye 17:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Please re-read and note the singular and plural. Here I said "RS citations for countries" and then said LP has found a good citation for this aspect. That needs to be used along with the other citations he provided. P-123 (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Fine. If the citations are beneficial and don't look like we are just trying to justify a Macro claim with piecemeal citations then that will be positive. GregKaye 19:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
All will depend on the way the sentence is worded. With the right adjustment to the wording it can be made to mean in effect the same thing as the original. I will try to think up something and put it on the TP first so as not to upset editors. P-123 (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm P-123. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. P-123 (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123, thank you for the introduction. I will certainly be mindful of the manner in which I interact with editors and similarly hope that other editors will engage in similar efforts. As you know, when there have been issues that I have thought to be validly raised, I have done so not in the more public arena of article talk page but privately on personal User talk pages. This gives an editor concerned more control as content can be deleted or archived as thought relevant.
I see no problem with the quoting of Wikipedia guidelines in cases in which they are not being followed. GregKaye 16:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to self only. Couldn't find a more suitable template. P-123 (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Like RfC[edit]

I like your new RFC on the map - but it is a little confusing. I suggest removing option 2 so that we can get a clear cut yes/no Been through this debate at least 3 times before. Legacypac (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac Face-smile.svg Thank you Its amazing to me to see how there can be a push towards the mention or Israel and the States within what is essentially a Sunni / Shia conflict. GregKaye 16:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Legacypac I've just searched the archive on the word map and didn't find a discussion on Israel. Only bother with this if you can remember anything relevant. GregKaye 18:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Not in the ISIL article. Look at Kobani Canton, Syrian Civil War, Syrian Kurdistan, and Supreme D's user page at Commons where he was banned for a time. He made the map he is pushing on a bunch of articles. Legacypac (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye, if I were you, on the RfC, I would state whether you are in support or opposition to what you proposed (I obviously know what it is, but other users do not). By stating I mean having typed Support or Oppose, as opposed to description. (Just so we can keep this RfC moving)—SPESH531Other 03:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Face-smile.svg Thank you my friend. I'm currently on it. I am apalled at the way that the hard work of editors such as yourself has, as I see it, been manipulated in this way. GregKaye 03:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)