User talk:Legacypac

Welcome!

Hello, Legacypac, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Jokestress (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrong user?

Hi, Legacypac. Please see my talk page, you have mail.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Your username

I'm kind of surprised nobody else has brought this up with you yet. Your name appears to violate Wikipedia's username policy, specifically WP:ORGNAME, as it would appear to represent this organization. The policy prohibits names that give the impression that you might represent a group or organziation, even if you do not actually represent them. You can easily address this issue by filing a request at WP:CHUS. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Response: I'm from Canada and never heard of American Legacy Political Action Committee before today. I've used legacypac as an online identity since 1996. I doubt anyone will confuse "American Legacy PAC" with "legacypac" as the American is the distinctive element. I actually tried unsuccessfully to combine accounts across various wiki sites into another username a while back. Legacypac (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess if I am the only one who has even noticed in all this time it probably is not an issue, they don't seem to have anything to do with your areas of interest here so the chance of being actually mistaken as representing them is minimal. PACs play an increasingly large role in american politics, so we try to stay vigilant when ot comes to them trying to spam here, but that is clearly not what you are here for. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of PACs generally, and love Colbert's PAC :) I doubt anyone will confuse me for them and if they do, they can change their name since I came first :) Legacypac (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Note to readers: several users have made reference to some alleged connection between my username and American Legacy PAC. Since there are more than 4,000 active federal PACs in the United States, forgive me for not being up on all of them. I started editing here in 2007 but American Legacy PAC only started in the 2012 election cycle and my choice of username is not some conspiracy planned years in advance. If you bring up this as an attack point expect strong resistance as there is no connection. Legacypac (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Valid reasons for undoing another users' edits

This is not one. You don't take the age of an account into consideration when deciding whether or not to undo it. Ryan Vesey 20:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Your edit here may very well be correct, but your summary doesn't make your point very well. A classic Wikipedia principle is "comment on content, not people"... this is somewhat exacerbated by the fact that the user in question is not a "brand new user": Xe has over 1,000 edits... unless you're referring to xyr newness to this article, in which case you might want to read up on article ownership; furthermore, you failed to respond to the points Axxxion raised in xyr own edit summary. I don't feel very strongly either way about your edit, but you're far more likely to not get reverted yourself if you address the substance of what you restored, as opposed to the circumstances of your restoration. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It was based on an error in where I clicked. I said sorry on his talk page right away. Legacypac (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Your work on the Boston Marathon bombings was outstanding and greatly appreciated. Nice work on the MIT Police article too! Hot Stop (Talk) 02:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for standing up to the idiots here

❁ ← I don't know how to make barnstar pix, but pretend this is one anyway.

I see you have the same problem as me, being suppressed and shouted down by wiki-retards. My guess is that they do it to sublimate their anger at being such wretched geeks that they're laughed at by everyone in general and girls in particular.

...Oh, and an extra barnstar: ❂ for not being an American. If you think "my fellow Amurr-kins" are irrational, wrongheaded buffoons on Wikipedia, just try living here. You have NO idea how lucky you are to be in a civilized country. Dave Bowman - Discovery Won (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. It's not really about you, but it does involve this nasty user award you have here, so just letting you know. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that I'm about to be banned from Wikipedia for calling Americans "irrational, wrongheaded buffoons." They're saying that the "no personal attacks" policy applies to the entire United States as a whole. That might sound like a joke, but they're serious. Are these people self-parody, or what?

Dave Bowman - Discovery Won (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

2011 unsolved 3x homicide =?=Tsarnaev bombers

Glad I saw your link to that 9/11/11 unsolved-triple-homicide before it got deleted; I did more research, went back to add facts & support, irritated yours deleted- should dispute if you have patience heh. Although a circumstantial association its compelling, fact based enough and can be further resourced.

All the junk they could have deleted like worthless page aboowwut canada's reaction (no relevance to anywhere or anyone).

Killing was on 9/11/11 (coincidentally to dzokrah's citizenship date), throats slashed, tamerlan seen referring to victim as best friend, fled to russia 6 months right after killing, weed spread on bodies (perhaps to look like drug relation...) dzhokar did smoke pot.

If i see you repost i'll log in and support it. can be a hassle with the power hungry tho.

-Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.232.157 (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the new section on the Bombings Talk page myself as I found an article about the 2011 kills started already. But thanks - The people who started the 2011 article did a great job building it very fast. Legacypac (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

ANI notification

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Just in case you are unaware - I have mentioned your name in the thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Heads-up

You're at three reverts on Boston Marathon bombings. I've come close to the line myself a few times on this article, and I haven't looked enough to see if I agree or disagree with your edits, but edit-warring blocks are pretty hard to get out of once you hit revert #4. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 18:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

A couple of the reverts were just removing new cite required tags and then putting in cites in another edit. Hardly edit warring. But thanks for the heads up. Also "Considerable leeway is also given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page." Legacypac (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh okay. If it was just a revert of convenience, so to speak, then it's probably not an issue. Still... watch yourself... with policies that can be enforced just by counting, people tend to get a bit unforgiving. And you raise a good point about that clause; however, while high-visibily certainly provides mitigation, it's worth noting that this isn't a featured article appearing on the main page, but rather an ITN item. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit

Hi Legacy. I was wondering why you made this change. It was perfectly proper, in its prior form. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought it looked better, but I've since read some policy on Wikidating that suggests 2012-13 is preferred on this platform. Legacypac (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with the policy, not that it matters ... , because I think the extra digits impart zero additional information. And take up space. Which wastes reader time. Inconsequential in any one instances, but across the project it adds up. Thanks again. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Personalization

Please avoid directing your comments to any specific editor, as you did at Talk:Boston Marathon bombings. Discuss the topic, not the editor. Cheers. Apteva (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments are noted as a response to another editor's comments is a very active thread. Legacypac (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not a chat room. Let me explain how it works. A says something. B says, A I agree but do you think something. A is long gone never to return. C comes by but does not reply because the comment was not directed to them, and nothing gets done. That is the wrong way to do things. Instead the way it works, properly, is A says something, B says, yes but this is what I think. This leaves it open for anyone, A or C, to come by and participate in the discussion. Never, ever ever direct comments to or about an editor on an article talk page. The place for that is on that user's talk page and on the various disciplinary pages such as AN, but even then only if it is relevant to the discussion. Discuss the topic, not the editor. Apteva (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

@Apteva -- I recognize that you have a few more edits, and therefore more experience, on wp than does Legacy. As a side note, however, I have my share of edits on wp ... more than you. So when you are lecturing another editor and say "Let me explain how it works" ... and "Never, ever ever direct comments to or about an editor on an article talk page" ... well, you are both being improperly bitey (very troubling to me -- especially given that you appear to aspire to be an admin one day), and ... in this instance ... incorrect. Talk pages, whether on articles or on userpages, are for talking. If one's comment is directed primarily at one editor, though in a conversation with more than one editor, it is both appropriate and far from uncommon to direct a comment at the specific editor. Where you arrived at your view of the world in this regard escapes me. Is it a guideline? If so, please point it out. Is it your experience? If so, your experience is more limited than mine, so perhaps that is why you are unaware of it.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOC, WP:NPA. It is consensus 101 to direct comments to the group, and about the subject, and not to the editor. Apteva (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

@Apteva -- in a conversation that involves many editors, when one wishes to as part of that conversation engage another editor directly, that is completely appropriate. As I am doing here. That's not a violation of wp:fock or wp:npa. And I could say this on an article talk page that involved more than one editor the same way I can do it on an editor's talkpage discussion that involves more than one editor. There is no difference. Did you just make that up? And assert it to a less-well-traveled newbie as though it was policy? Seriously ... it is bad enough that you are taking an officious tone, and with a relative newbie, but to make up policy like that is unhelpful.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, no. Here the topic is editor conduct. I did not make up WP:FOC or WP:NPA. In consensus development, comments are never ever directed to an individual, and only to the group. The reasons for that are quite obvious, and have been explained above in the A, B, C example. FYI, another method, parliamentary procedure, which we do not use, always and solely directs all comments to the moderator, and never to any of the participants in the discussion. The reason, though, is identical. It does not work. Apteva (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not consider myself a wiki newbie. I've been editing since 2007 with this account, plus use other accounts across Wikibooks, Wikivoyage, and a special interest wiki project. I focus on quality over quantity on my edits. This is a hobby for me. As a full time real estate developer my job is to read and interpret policy across many organizations. Only the editor who made unbelievable or hard to understand comments made by that editor can explain themselves. Weird that instead of addressing your hard to understand comments you came to my talk page to explain how thinks work, like I am some sort of child. Cheers, Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not weird at all. That is what user talk pages are for. It is not a serious enough infraction that admin attention is required, but article talk pages are only for discussing improvements to the article, and any discussion to or about an editor just does not belong there. Do editors violate that sometimes? Yes. Apteva (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

@Apteva. Of course you did not make up WP:FOC or WP:NPA. But, as I've indicated, you demonstrate here that you do not understand their application, which is quite another matter. And, as I said, it is completely appropriate to direct a comment to an editor on a talkpage, whether it be an article talkpage or an editor talkpage, in a discussion with more than one editor. Plus, I agree with Legacy's comments above, as to your editing.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks like this. a13ean (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The other editor insisted that it is plain fact humans and chimpanzees evolved from monkeys - I just noted he might be correct about himself without agreeing that his plain fact applies to myself :) Therefore I thoughtfully noted potential common ground on a hotly debated issue, which is pretty funny frankly  :) Did you not laugh? Legacypac (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks such as that are rarely perceived a "funny". Apteva (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

How is it an attack to agree with another editor's POV? Please go find someone else to harass Apteva. Legacypac (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio is 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/2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio 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. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Your recent editing history at 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. Martin451 (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

No, revisions like replacing cn tags with references are fine. I'm just an active editor on this page. The person placing this notice has made a similar number of reverts on the same article - so if they want to pursue this they can expect to be blocked for edit warring. Legacypac (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Look at your Contributions, and search for the word undid. That is not replacing cn tags etc., it is replacing sections that are being discussed on the talk page, and against consensus. Compare them against my contributions, I am quite happy for an admin to look at these. I am warning you to think about your editing, not because I want you blocked.Martin451 (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

OR

You should be familiar with Wikipedia's original research policies. Knowingly putting unverified information into articles is a bad idea to begin with; the reasoning "look at him, it's clearly the same guy" is purely original research. Some guy (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The original contribution accurately reflected the source. That comment was only in a reversion note to someone who deleted the contribution without thought. The proper course of action by the person who deleted the contribution was to check if it was true, not delete directly but to verify and add a better source - which is exactly what I did myself. Thanks for your comment though, obviously we want to avoid OR.Legacypac (talk) 03:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --John (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The evidence in the article edits and talk page is you made an error in deleting a source but not the direct quotes from the source. Now you are threatening me with blocking over good faith well sourced (but unspecified by you) edits? Let's take it to arbitration right now. Admins are supposed to be helpful not go around putting unsubstantiated warnings on talk pages. Legacypac (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Legacypac. You have new messages at 2001:db8's talk page.
Message added 17:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

– 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Refactoring talk page comments

Hi Legacy. This is to make you aware that this edit you made has been reverted. While I understand your frustration, you generally can never remove comments from a discussion once they have been replied to because it throws the entire thread out-of-context. An alternative would be to strike your comments by using <s> at the beginning of text you want to remove, and </s> at the end. (Or, you can use <strike> at the beginning and </strike> at the end.) Here is an example of what it would look like: This is what text looks like when you strike it. In the situation with the thread you removed your comments from, the appropriate way of handling it would've been to either (1) just make a final comment that states your intention of ending your participation, or (2) simply not commenting in the thread any more. But simply removing all your comments obviously would be very confusing to readers because they would have no idea who or what the other editors are replying to. Thanks.--76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Most of the other comments were not replies, but attacks and tangents, but ya, ok. Legacypac (talk) 02:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Improper closes

Hi again Legacy. You improperly snow-closed two move proposals on the talk page at 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio with this edit and then this edit. They have been reverted. First, you cannot close a proposal if you have participated in it. Second, you cannot snow-close a proposal that clearly is not at the point of snow; Alternative Proposal 2 has three supports and four opposes. If you feel that a proposal should be closed, ask an uninvolved admin or other very experienced editor review it. For the record, I do not like either of the proposals you closed, but it's important that !votes are never shut down improperly. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi 76.189.109.155 I was just about to go to your talk page to discuss. Your count in the edit summary and above is different than mine and I see you reverted a SNOW close by [1] as well. By my count:

• Alternate Proposal (1)[Cleveland kidnappings case] (which I did not try to close) is at Proposer + 2 Support and 5 Oppose (including me)
• Alternate Proposal 2 [Cleveland missing trio rescue] has Proposer weakly suggesting a title, one "Support tentatively" and one "Support a title similar to the one above"; (neither of which are really Supports) and now 6 Opposes (I had put comment but had not voted - just fixed that. So without anyone really arguing for this title... I tried to SNOW Close it.
• Alternative proposal 3 [Cleveland Trio kidnapping] is based on 3 Suspects not 3 Victims. 0 supporters and 5 Opposes (including me) This was SNOW closed by [2] and unclosed by IP 76.
• Alternative proposal 4 [Ariel Castro case] has the proposer posting Support (incorrectly) and than 4 Opposes and one editor who wants to keep the current title (so another Oppose) and I commented on the keep current title comment but did not vote or express an opinion on the proposal itself. I tried to SNOW this one.

It seems very clear that none of these Alternative Proposals (especially 2-4) have a Snowballs chance in hell of passing, esp since so many editors support the Main proposal. Do you differ? As I never even commented on Proposal 4 (only commenting on a counterproposal) am I OK to close it boldly? The other one I had commented negatively on the proposal but not voted (until now). Legacypac (talk) 07:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Legacy. Look... you and I, and anyone else who has actively participated in the various move proposals cannot, should not, and must not close any of the proposals. And we especially must never close a proposal that we have !voted in or even opined in. It's highly inappropriate, a violation of involved, and would hurt our credibility. I agree that most or all of the alternate proposals stand little or no chance of being approved, but editors like us, who have clearly stated our positions, are the last ones who should be closing them. And if the proposals you closed stand no chance, then there's nothing to worry about anyway. ;) I agree that alt proposal 3 is the one where WP:SNOW clearly applies, but we would need a totally uninvolved admin or editor to close it; someone who has not materially participated in any of the current move proposals. Finally, editors must be extremely careful when invoking WP:SNOW. It's a very high standard. By the way, nominators of a proposal do count as a support !vote. I really appreciate your interest and involvement in the move proposals. Hopefully, the matter will be resolved soon. :) 76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

One other quick point. You made a Comment in alt proposal 2, which you then changed today to Comment & Oppose with this edit. But it should be one or the other, not both. Comment is only to be used when you are not !voting. So the way to do it is... when you make a comment only, but subsequently decide you want to !vote, you should either simply place your !vote at the bottom of the thread and leave the original Comment above, or just strike Comment part in the original post and add Oppose before it.
It would look like this: Oppose Comment Then, time stamp the post again with five tildes instead of the normal four (which will simply add the current date and time) to let readers know when you updated your post. So you can go there now and strike the Comment part. ;) 76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. Just trying to move this along to get the article title to something that makes sense. Not very experienced with closing discussions, just read the guidelines on how and copied what [3] did. Cheers, Legacypac (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I understand your impatience; the current awful title needs to be changed. Unfortunately, move proposals on high-notability articles take time. Don't worry, things will work out fine. And if a particular proposal truly doesn't stand a chance, then it doesn't really matter if it's closed or not. ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not crazy

If you disagree with me, drop the ad hominem attacks and discuss the issue on the TALK page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigiheri (talk • contribs) 16:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm sure you are not crazy, but your POV on corporate structure is a little crazy. From what I can see, every other editor is disagreeing with your POV. Legacypac (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the 2 or 3 people who disagreed are wrong. Have you considered that? You should because they and you are indeed wrong. Not only are shareholders generally not owners in America, they are not owners of German, French, and Japanese corporations. This is a general article on corporations, so we should consider these corporations too, right? The extent to which you believe something that is false is something you will need to come to terms with. Sigiheri (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "corporation, joint-stock company, shareholder, share, finance, corporate finance, and others". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! You may receive a duplicate notice on this matter as this one is being given manually because our bot is down; you may receive another when it comes back up. -- TransporterMan (TALK) 18:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You have been invited, so let's see your hard cold logic, with cites.Sigiheri (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sock puppet case opened concerning you.

I have opened a sock puppet case concerning you here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Legacypac. You comments would be welcome.Martin451 (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a false allegation, pure and simple. That many other editors have an issue with User:HiLo48's posts is easy to document. I've replied, and when no proof is found, perhaps you will come back and say you are sorry. Cheers, Legacypac (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• That SPI, right now, looks to be heading nowhere, but Legacypac, no more of this. Whether you mention HiLo by name or not doesn't matter to me--it's time to stop concerning yourself with him and, if you wish to be taken seriously as a Wikipedia editor, it's time to stop misrepresenting things: your reading of that ANI thread is hardly a good one. Please consider this a final warning for harassment. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Legacy would've been fine with that comment had he not included the last sentence. This feud between Legacy and HiLo needs to end now. Both have behaved poorly. They need to cease initiating any contact with or about the other. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)\

I have zero interest in further contact with that editor which is why I requested a IBAN. However, I did not start this sock puppet investigation, which is based on alleged similarities between what I wrote and someone apparently in Japan wrote. I think it is a very valid defense (and one of my only defenses) to point out that many other editors wrote similar things about the editor in question, and clearly these other editors are not all related. IF the IP is a sock puppet and not just a regular editor, that IP could just as easily belong to any of a number of editors expressing similar views (including several Admins). Further, I also looked where the IP has edited and found they have been on pages I've never visited before and topics I have zero interest in. Legacypac (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The SPI is of no relevance here. An interaction ban also means not even talking about the other editor, so if you wish to act as if there is one, you know what to do. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Legacy, HiLo did not start the SPI either. In fact s/he didn't even participate in it. I hope you'll takes Drmies' advice. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Abu Omar al-Shishani 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:

• reportedly being killed by Kurdish fighters at Mosul Dam in the [2014 Northern Iraq offensive]] on or slightly before August 7, 2014.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Move requested to make room for American operations in Syria

There's a move discussion at Talk:2014_American_rescue_mission_in_Syria#Move_request_-_9_September_2014 to move 2014 American rescue mission in Syria back to original title 2014 American operations in Syria. With surveillance flights ongoing and airstrikes soon to happen there needs to be a place to put this.~Technophant (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Could you provide citations for the countries you have added to the infobox today, please? When composing the footnotes, please use the Wiki Edit cite template method, and do not leave just bare URLs, as these are susceptible to link rot. When that happens the link will be broken and the citation will be unreadable. Thanks. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 The article itself has good cites for the countries added. Just turn on any TV or check any paper to see that UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan etc are bombing ISIS. What I don't get is all the opponents listed that are not actively fighting. Legacypac (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

All the other countries/groups have supporting citations in the infobox; this is a gap. The UAE isn't mentioned in the article yet. Someone may add "citation needed" tags and I was trying to pre-empt that. Just knowing the news isn't enough in WP. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who ads a cite needed instead of just adding a cite is wasting their time. Legacypac (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The onus is on the editor concerned to provide citations and a tag is better than a straight revert. But that apart, thanks very much for rationalising the Lead infobox and getting some sense into it at last. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the symbols you use in the infobox, $, is misleading. It suggest financial support, not military operations - that was what I immediately thought. Perhaps "m" instead? -P123ct1 (talk)

Ya, that is a good point. I was looking for something that does not have a wikipedia function like * does. I trimmed out everyone that was just talk, so now we just have different levels of military intervention, either fighting, bombing or supplying arms. 22:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Good job done! Thanks. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Have just noticed that your edit re Abu Omar al-Shishani didn't register, and there are no reverts of it registered. Software not working? --P123ct1 (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

1RR

Hello, you are the subject of discussion at the edit warring noticeboard here: [4]. DocumentError (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Where hopefully you will receive sanctions. Cheers Legacypac (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Blogspot

In situations like this you should take it to the reliable source noticeboard (RSN) and get their consensus. Once they investigate and comment on it in your favor, then you should add it back and i would also add a note in the reference that this blog spot link is an exception per the consensus on rsn to prevent it being removed again.

i dont want to use that blogspot source because i tried searching on internet for other sources claiming ansar al islam are opponents of isis but could not find it. So even if it reliable and an exception is made at the RSN, someone else may remove it for same reason

if you can find a source other than blogspot then i think it will solve this issue, i wont remove it again if you add another source other than blogspot. but if you want to add that blogspot source again please take it to rsn and get approval from there first please--Misconceptions2 (talk) 10:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your cleanup generally and I'm not too worried about this change, just wanted to give you the heads up that that guy has serious cred. He was the first to prove chemical weapons use in Syria. Interesting story. Also, I've just started a discussion about al-Qaida maybe joining ISIL on the ISIL talk page. How do we handle that?Legacypac (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

In case you are interested

The first ref I can find to 'self-designated "Islamic State”' is at: http://www.turkeyanalyst.org/publications/turkey-analyst-articles/item/333-ankara-pursues-persian-partnership.html .

Its use at ISIL is a strong contribution. Was it your invention? Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I have seen various media use the phrase, but that is a good article. Often the media uses Islamic State in the headline for brevity but qualifies it was "so called Islamic State" in the body, and then uses ISIL or ISIS for the rest of the article. Legacypac (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Its the problem of brevity when editors opt for shorthand for an easy flowing text rather than a fuller story. Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Your ISIS edits

First, thanks for going into the United Nations designation so thoroughly; you are quite right that the RSN only scratched the surface. Tbh, the RSN was not much help with a similar query we recently put to them about Israel's designation. Secondly, I owe you some sort of apology and an explanation. Sooner or later there was going to have to be a section on criticism of the Islamic State - this has been alluded to in discussion on other aspects - and today an IP has raised the same subject. Your edits seemed a perfect opportunity to open a section on criticisms, so I have done that and put into it your edit about Tony Abbott and also your edit in the Lead I rather high-handedly reverted yesterday. I removed the Lead edit as it was specifically about the name and the Lead is supposed to be a summary of the article as a whole. This new section seemed an ideal place to put it. I will put a note about the new section on the Talk page and of course anyone is free to question it or make adjustments. I am not particularly happy with the title I gave it, for instance, or its positioning rather late in the article, but at the moment I cannot think of the best place to put it, given the way the article flows. We are encouraged to be WP:BOLD and I certainly have been this time. I hope there are no hard feelings. Obviously you are free to revert what I did (but please leave the new section!) and I won't consider it as edit-warring. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen these edits. I think that the name is one of the most critical issues being discussed that it belongs in the lead. CNN for example is sticking to ISIS while people are talking about action against ISIL. Thanks for being cooperative. It is all very strange. Legacypac (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said. The new section is called "Criticism of the Islamic State". The widespread criticism and dispute is really about the legitimacy of the Islamic State and the caliphate, isn't it? The name "Islamic State" and whether that name should be used is part of that. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Article blanking

Hello. I see that you've blanked the article Siege of Kobane/Ayn al-Arab/, apparently intending to delete it. However, please be noted that blanking the article is not tantamount to a deletion. If you wish to delete the article, please nominate it under one of the WP:CSD criterion, propose it for deletion following WP:PROD, or (and this is recommended), nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD. Furthermore, the the title that you've moved the article to does not seem to follow our naming convention, particularly Wikipedia:Article titles#Treatment of alternative names. In regards to that, I will be assuming that the move is uncontroversial housekeeping and move the article back to 'Siege of Kobane,' as you recognized in this edit was the WP:COMMONNAME. KJ ^Discuss? 11:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The whole thing was so messed up, with a talk page detached from the article and circular redirects. I hope I have it fixed now so that everything is useable. The page blanking was only to deal with a faulty title I created myself. Legacypac (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Look if you want to be helpful, let us discuss here before you revert. Now you have two nearly identical articles at Siege of Kobane/Ayn al-Arab with the cleanups and the faulty title Siege of Kobane/Ayn al-Arab/ (note the /) without the cleanups plus whatever you did with the talk pages. Please fix it KJ. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

OK. It looks like you somehow moved the page previously at Siege of Ayn al-Arab to two different pages, Siege of Kobane/Ayn al-Arab/ on :31 and Siege of Kobane/Ayn al-Arab on :32. In this case, I would suggest that you nominate one of the pages for deletion (the latter, since I already tagged Siege of Kobane under G6 for the move from the former) under the WP:CSD criterion G6 (uncontroversial maintenance) and G7 (author request deletion). If that goes as planned, the page Siege of Kobane would be deleted, and Siege of Kobane/Ayn al-Arab/ would be moved there along with the page history. Then, if people disagree, there could be a discussion. If you're not sure how to nominate the page for CSD, just message me. KJ ^Discuss? 12:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC) I found a spaghetti bowl of redirects. If the article name Siege of Kobane/Ayn al-Arab is not acceptable (an attempt by me to create a compromise) than please initiate the deletion nomination so we can move it to Siege of Kobane. I just updated the / article with all the cleanup so it is good to move, and blanked the no / so no one edits it. Legacypac (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I was able to move the / article to Siege of Kobane, Syria. Later we can drop Syria from the title but at least it makes sense now. Appreciate the assistance. Legacypac (talk)

Kobane/Ayn al-Arab

I have replied on my Talk page. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at the Village Pump

Hello! This message is to notify you that there is a discussion at the Wikipedia Village Pump that may be of interest to you. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Might this edit to the ISIL article need fixing?

Hi Legacypac,
This edit: ISIL edit at 20:41 today looks like it may need some attention. Tks, Scott P. (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

ANI

A topic in which you may be involved, is the subject of discussion at ANI here. SantiLak (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 military intervention against ISIL, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iraq Civil War. 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) 09:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Kobane

Hello Legacypac. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kobane, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I don't accept that this is uncontroversial, given the situation in Syria. This needs discussion on the talk page or WP:RM. . Thank you. GedUK  12:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ya there was no response to my request for discussion on the lightly trafficked city talk page User:Ged UK but the issue was discussed on the closely related page for the current battle here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Siege_of_Kobane where the decision was for Kobane based on a huge search result diff - we are just trying to line up the city page name with the battle page name now. Thanks for reconsidering. Legacypac (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I'm not certain of the best way forward on reaching a solution on this is, though I suspect WP:RM is as good a place as any. However, the nature of name changes in a situation like this, where there are multiple sources using various names, means it cannot be uncontroversial, which is what the speedy delete/move criterion requires. Even the link you provided shows an argument, and I wouldn't say there's consensus there at all, rather some people declaring one way or the other. GedUK  12:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ya the battle page has a stable title now, even with the city page hung up on the arab name. I'd not familiar with using WP:RM - just trying to clean up the big mess left. If Kobanê (with the mark) was cleared I'd move the article there and I expect it would be pretty stable given the battle page is stable now. Legacypac (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

""Ayn al-Arab" About 260,000 results - Kobane About 2,240,000 results says Google. Suggestions? Legacypac (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

ISIS vs ISIL

When they start using ISIL instead of ISIS full-time we can use ISIL than. However, per Wikipedia policy on common names, we use the term that is most widely used (even if its not the official term). And its not just CNN that is using ISIS. Just five examples of a quick search [5][6][7][8][9]. EkoGraf (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC) No question its a valid common term but so is ISIL see the talk page for some of the latest research. Not worth arguing over, or reverting each other over. Legacypac (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Linking

You do realize that all pages within Wikipedia can be linked to like you link to any article, right? So you don't have to format links to pages like Wikipedia:Notability as an external link.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes but there are certain community pages that I just can\t figure out what part of the link to cut out for a wikilink. Not very often, but enough to bug me. Legacypac (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

So long as the URL does not have php in it, you just start after "/wiki/". "_" becomes just a space, and whatever punctuation is in the section title or page title you can copy. Like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Abuse of Processes and Editors by DocumentError.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok a big thanks for explaining :) Legacypac (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		A barnstar for your work in cleaning up and reorganizing the page 2014 military intervention against ISIL recently. Good job! SantiLak (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Move

I'm not sure if you were planning on executing the move to 2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, but I would encourage you to wait for admin closure. It does look like the move has consensus, but I think it would be seen as controversial if you were to perform it. No offense intended. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

LOL hell No - I've been falsely accused of moving the article multiple times (I checked 1000 edits and months back - just a single move) Someone else can do that move. I just withdraw my alternate proposal on the name and closed discussion. Legacypac (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that's totally fine. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI see the warning on User talk:PleaseConsider -- PBS (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link and taking care of this matter. Cheers Legacypac (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Lists of references on the talk page

If you make an edit to a talk page as you did here which includes ref...tag pairs, please also include {{reflist}} in the edit so that the ref...tags appear within the same edit (I assume the lack of a signature was just an oversight). -- PBS (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

added reflist. Do you understand what I meant by ref...tag pairs? -- PBS (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You violated the 1rr

revert yourself or ill file a report. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Take it to talk please. You (or whoever tagged it in the first place-I don't know who that was) are not following WP:NPOVD. Legacypac (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That is an essay, not a Wikipedia guideline. You violated the 1rr, last chance to self revert. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no basis for the tag, nor have you stated why you feel the article title or content is not NPOV. Rather than threatening me, try to convince other editors on the talk page please. Legacypac (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Reported. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Undue Revert?

I will not edit the article. In my opinion as the edits to the article were not the direct cause of the ban they should be treated like any other good faith edit. Other editors may make the revert, but you must not solicit them to do so. Please read carefully WP:3RR and how it applies to WP:1RR. -- PBS (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that's why I asked. Thanks for your help. Legacypac (talk) 11:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested moves

Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#Proposed_Move Convert this into an WP:RM and let an uninvolved editor (probably an admin) close it as all standard RMs are.

If you have any other outstanding proposed moves on any other page, convert them into requested moves using the WP:RM header templates.

In future always use the WP:RM process for any potentially controversial moves you wish to initiate. This is a standard Wikipedia method to handle controversial moves. Using other methods such as RfCs is discouraged, although sometimes a move is generated by an AfDs.

-- PBS (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Archive top

When using {{Archive top}} place it below the section header. If you do not do this the section header and the temple are likely to be mangled by the archiving bot when the closed discussion is moved into the archive.

Also for closed discussions of the type you have been closing I think it is better to use subst:

{{subst:Archive top|result=May had a little lamb}}

As this expands the template code within the page and makes it independent of any later changes to the template.

-- PBS (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for the pointers. I've just converted the Iranian-led intervention request. Legacypac (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

As a general rule you are using {{Archive top}} far too much on talk pages, particularly for discussions in which you are involved (See the first sentence in the documentation in {{Archive top}}). -- PBS (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate comments

With this revert you have embedded into the history of the article

Undid revision 629045539 by Ericl (talk) revert nonsensical renaming of a link - the linked article is about Iranian action in Iraq, not insurgency in Iran

This is unnecessarily provocative. All you needed to say was

Undid revision 629045539 by Ericl - the linked article is about Iranian action in Iraq, not insurgency in Iran

And then explain in more detail on the talk page what you mean. As it is you are likely to start a flame war because people do no like to be told that their good faith edit is nonsensical (there is a big difference between "I think it is a nonsensical renaming" and "a nonsensical renaming"), and as shown above there is no need for it. Remember the edit history is meant to be a message not just for one editor, or even the last 50 edits, but for people who read the page's history in a year or ten years time. See for example this article 10 years ago do you care whether any of the editors though an edit nonsensical or are the details of the edit more relevant?

Because you, as an ordinary user, can not strike out comments in the history of an article, think very carefully before you make what could be seen as a personal attack, as it's the sort of Wikidrama that no one needs and is totally unnecessary. To paraphrase one of the bullet points I recommended you read when closing the recent ANI of which you were the subject (Good practices for all talk pages used for collaboration):

• "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the message focused upon the details of the edit, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the article."

-- PBS (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and good point. I can really appreciate that having been on the receiving end so much viral. Legacypac (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Lol, Chill out dude. Yes you were arguing for consistency. Note as well I was arguing for consistency. My first comment was to make clear that 3 names for the Islamic State were being used in various places throughout the article. That of course is not consistent. As I said for alot of people this may not be confusing now but this inconsistency in the article may become problematic and confusing down the line. Your mention of the general sanctions did not apply to that situation and they only stand to make this already heated situation more heated. Was it 2 or was it 3 separate ANI's opened in one day about something on that article or related articles? Don't you find that ridiculous? You have a link to the consensus that It should be called ISIL. You don't need explain the general sanctions when you have that. That gives us a reason to use ISIL. Then you have your consistency and that also fixes the inconsistencies in the article that I have pointed out. Win, win, and then we can move on to another issue in the article. Like for instance you have brought up an issue with the map. Someone has changed the map to one that only covers Iraq. Does this new map meet your concerns? We have nothing to fight here. I'm only here to try to improve the article. I think you are as well. No offense. Truce. Or what have you.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I came across as cross-I have no issues with you. Just feel under attack recently by someone else. Yes lets be consistent. I made some edits toward that goal. The Iraq map is much better than the red ISIL map. I also took out the casualties that should not be listed in this article. Improve together right. Legacypac (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of the attacks and I completely understand. That's actually why I've reached out to you here. Someone sets up a Battleground and you get forced into a fort. You have nothing to apologize for there.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 Intervention

Hey Legacypac, I was wondering if you could help me out with there 2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. A user tried to mess around with the infobox and lump together Iraq and Iraqi kurdistan into the same section as Iranian led partners when they have always been separated. I changed it and the Iraqi forces are separated again but I can't seem to get the line to separate the Iranian forces and the US-led forces. Since you have done a lot of work on the article and seem experienced at this kind of technical stuff that I sometimes don't always get, I was wondering if you could help. I really appreciate you taking the time to look at my request. Thanks! - SantiLak (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC - Name of ISIS/ISIL/IS

There is currently an RfC underway here about what name/abbreviation to use for ISIS/ISIL/IS in the American-led intervention in Syria article. I am trying to get as many users to provide input as possible. I appreciate your contributions! - SantiLak (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

THE PEOPLE OF KOBANI LOST EVERYTHING. DON’T CONTRIBUTE TO THEM LOSING THE NAME OF THEIR TOWN

KOBANI: The Name and the Origin

I was born in the district of Kobani in 1946 and it was here where I grew up and where I attended school in the early years of my life, Kobani, a Kurdish town in Northern Syria, cannot be found in Ottoman archives. The town came to existence after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. It started as a station for the German engineers and the workers who were involved in the building of the railway line “Baghdad-Berlin” in the latter years of the Ottoman Empire. As the location was on a creek and near the railway station on the Turkish side, the French later used it as a settlement for their officers and the local militia, utilising Armenian and Kurdish experts/workers to run restaurants, teahouses and bars. The location even had a bordello, as my father and people of his generation told us. The French referred to the little settlement as “Company.” Later the Kurds called the place “Kobani” (derived from “Company”).

When Syria gained independence in 1946, the Syrian authorities called it “Ain-ul-Arab.” This name that translates into “Arab Spring” or “Arab Creek” comes from the Ottoman name “Arabpinar.” This was the name of the village east of Kobani, now a part of Kobani itself. The Kurdish name is “Kaniya Ereban” that again translates into “Arab Spring.” According to what we heard from the generation of our parents it was called “Arab Spring” because the Bedouins used to bring their sheep in summer to graze in the nearby locations and the spring (now dry) was the source of the water they needed for their sheep. This practice actually continued until the turmoil started in Syria about four years ago. The Bedouins who came from the south used to purchase the fields from Kurdish farmers after harvest to graze their sheep on them. It is unfortunate that some reports are full of misinformation about what is going on in Kobani. One mistake is the misspelt name of Kobani that appears as “Kobane” in some reports. Once such mistakes become widespread it becomes harder to correct. Therefore PLEASE spell the name correctly: Kobani.

Many thanks,

Chahin Baker, Kurdish Australian educator/writer/journalist (Shahîn B. Soreklî) 15/10/2014

This message taken from personal account of Shahîn B. Sorekli. So, please help us to correct the name of city as Kobanî or Kobani as it should be.--Laser Perşikita (talk) 09:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Laser Perşikita: I have noticed the misspelling of the name myself and have corrected it several times. I will check for other misspellings and correct them, and keep an eye on this. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much P123ct1, it is important to prevent spreading of grammatically incorrect names.--Laser Perşikita (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

About your revert on my edit

Hi user. I add information about role of Iran in Siege of Amirli that you remove it! Can you read Persian Language? I can. I f you sure role of Iran is a rumor, please show me the exact sentence in the article. Also, we can continue this discussion in Persian Language.

In a translation "Told German public radio networks are also rumors that the Iranian air fighters attack against the Islamic government to break the siege Mrly announce" That is not a strong enough source to include Iran as a belligerent in a conflict. Legacypac (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Canada

Gwet consensus first. BTW- im not against the edit, as I said [10]. there were just issues with itLihaas (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

EU/UN - ISIS

When you did all that valuable research into the UN's position on ISIL as a terrorist organization, did you find out when the EU adopted the UN's Sanctions List? I can't find a date for this anywhere on the internet, and I think we need to put that in (section 3). I added a "when?" tag to the EU, hoping someone would come along and fill it in, but never thought to ask you until now! --P123ct1 (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 The original UN Security Council designation was against al Qaida and co in 1999 before 9/11 (2001). The EU has been tracking this list since Council Resolution 467/2001 of 6 March 2001. After what is now called ISIL joined al Qaida the UN on 18 October 2004 added them to the terrorist sanctions list. The EU has made over 130 updates (as I recall) to their list keeping up with updates to the UN list. I dont know if it took days or weeks to update the EU list to match the UN list but it hardly matters since they adopted the entire list back in 1999 and by policy mirror the UN list. See the chart here http://www.berghof-foundation.org/fileadmin/redaktion/Publications/Other_Resources/RLM_EU_Terrorist_Listing.pdf [User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't find in that document where it says the EU has been tracking the list since the Council Resolution of 6 March 2001. What page is it on? Where does it say the EU adopted the UN list in 1999? Where did you get those dates from? --P123ct1 (talk) 07:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I have found a date, thanks. --P123ct1 (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Move request for 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa

FYI, a move of 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa has been formally requested. I'd invite you to submit your comments. --Natural R_X 17:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 Hong Kong Protests

As you were a participant in the move request at Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests, I wanted to inform you that the move has been proposed again and can be found here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Closing templates

I have altered this edit to place the closing header template inside the section. This is done for two reasons.

1. If the closing is placed outside the closed section the chances are that the closing header will not be archived at the same time or location as the section which it is intended to close.
2. Placing the unsigned closing information at the bottom of the previous section probably means that the archiving bot will not archive the section because the closing comment at the bottom of that section is not signed with a time stamp.

-- PBS (talk) 09:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Military of ISIL

@Legacypac: thanks for your edits on the above article. My thoughts relate to WP:BEGIN - "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." and that if ISIL have air capability then an overarching description of army is inappropriate. As a general comment I think that there can be disruptive edits by stealth and I'm not sure how much further this goes than the ones that I have recently highlighted. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

ISIL propaganda

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my comment. I meant proof that opposition resulted directly from the propaganda, a negative effect of the propaganda, not opposition in general. Hope this clears up the point. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You should be able to come up with sources saying the beheading, Jonah tomb, and mass execution videos have resulted in increased awareness and world public opposition, leading to various govts willingness to go to war. P123ct1. It is very clear to me ISIL Propoganda = increased support and opposition, both of which ISIL wants as they seek military confrontation. Legacypac (talk) 07:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 07:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

To say "No nation recognises..." is stating something that has not been proved yet. You say in your edit summary: "no need to request a cite here - tons of cites support the point in the next sentence." They don't support the statement that "No nation recognizes ..." at all. If you really cannot understand that or how the statement is misleading, I give up on working with editors to produce a truthful, balanced article. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

How is this so hard. Geo Politically "recognizes" is a specific diplomatic term and "recognition" is one of the tests of statehood. The statement is 100% fact until some country says "hey, Islamic State, you guys are the legitimate government of the territory you claim, welcome to the club of nations." The burden of proof must shift to the person adding a cite tag in proving that some nation recognizes them as a country. Legacypac (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If the burden of proof is on the person who adds a cite tag, there would never be any cite tags. You have switched from saying there is no need for a cite because there are tons of cites already there to support the point (edit summary) to saying there is no need for one because of the diplomatic recognition point. Which is it? This is an academic point for me as I don't much care what the wording is. I will leave it to other editors to go into this. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think my point has changed at all - but some clarification was achieved by wiki linking to diplomatic recognition. Suppose you declared your backyard to be the Islamic State. I write "No nation recognizes your backyard as the Islamic State." Now what RS can we find to justify the statement about your backyard or does your claim to sovereignty stand? Legacypac (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I still don't agree with your reasoning, but I retract my bad-tempered comments starting "If the burden of proof ...". :) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Notable ISIL members) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Notable ISIL members, Legacypac!

Wikipedia editor Dylanfromthenorth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Moving it to List of ISIL members, and it'll need references, but it 'could' be encyclopaedic :)

To reply, leave a comment on Dylanfromthenorth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hi, I'm thinking of putting in a RM request to either change Category:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant members to Category:ISIL members or to change List of ISIL members to List of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant members. Any preference? Either way its turning into quite a death list. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Ya and the world (and even ISIL who craves martyrdom) wants the death list to grow. I created it with a title exactly matching the heading in the ISIL article from whence it came, but as you can see Dylanfromthenorth promptly renamed the article. I was not even thinking about the category. I don't mind the new name and frankly now that the list is out of the high traffic article it can be added to without people worrying about adding too many names. Anyone that is notable enough for their own WP article should be added. Let;s just move it to List of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant members and cite lining up with the related category, which should not be controversial. Legacypac (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

That looks great. Also to let you know that I have created a link to from the category to its "main" article and have also created the sub-category, "Category:Members of groups allied with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". I don't personally see clear evidence that groups in Libya, Sinai etc. are part of ISIL. A group can potentially declare being allied or loyal and benefit from the publicity attached, grow in size and continue to do what they like. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I was of that opinion to (and still am for Yemen, Algeria and KSA), but the sources on Libya [11][12][13] 300 returned ISIL fighters, a leader sent by Bagdadi from Syria etc al seems like an organized colinilization project. Legacypac (talk) 09:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll also leave you to decide whether or not to add {{Template:History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant}} I think it might be useful lower down the page to explain non-"ISIL" citations as were mentioned on talk page. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what that template does or adds - you are a level headed editor, add it if you think it will help. We do have the problem of 50 names for the group that is not really explained in the article. Legacypac (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

relief :)

 
  I sometimes feel here that we can really be in the wars at the moment. Here's a gift that comes, as far as the picture is concerned, from a peaceful place. regards. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"Butterflies and rainbows"

 

If they aren't to your style please delete or collapse but I thought, given the state of discussion, these gift images might have validity. If only life were like this :). I will try not to work on a gallery. GregKaye 13:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

List of ISIL members sourcing

Hi - I got stuck trying to source some of the entries in the List of ISIL members article; as I'm sure you appreciate this is the kind thing we could do with having references for. When I searched for some of them I got lots of hits confirming membership of Al-Qaeda but not ISIL, and it's not quite the same. I was wondering if you could help out? I left a note on the article talkpage about it too, and I have both there and here on my watchlist, so I don't mind where you reply :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't notice, but the entire article was a spinoff from the heavily edited ISIL article, just lifting out a section. Generally as the list as evolved all the names link to articles about the members. I'm not too concerned with sourcing the names on the page - but if you want to add sources I'd suggest looking at the underlying article. Some of these guys only got press when they died. Also remember that many were killed when what is now called ISIL was a unit of al-Qaeda so I'd expect refs to the parent org. But if they were in Iraq and connected to al-Qaeda before the break between the orgs they were AQI=ISIL. Legacypac (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Okey dokey. So I've amended the article lede with "...and previous incarnations" and can cross-reference Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Names with my reference searches. All good. I'll hang on until after the page-move to the full ISIL name though anyway. :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Excellent addition and I moved the page. Legacypac (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Islamic criticism

Hi, One of the aspects of the lead that used to be very prominent related to Islamic criticism of the group and this is the aspect that pro ISIL editors seem most keen to remove from the article. It was most notibly witnessed during Fel123..s Unilateral removals of this type of criticism and the consensus discussion regarding the replacement of any content was largely conducted in a context in which the scale of this removal was not apparent and in which I was being libellously presented as the only editor that wanted criticism in the lead. The same people that advocate the use of the unqualified designation "Islamic State" are largely the same people that are opposed to a representation of Islamic criticism in the lead.

My conjecture is that the various editors have little problem with the idea of governmental criticism but desperately want to remove reference to Islamic criticism. I don't know if you have witnessed a similar pattern. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you are on to something. pro-ISIL types don't mind western govts saying nasty stuff or dropping bombs, they WANT that fight. It justifies their existence as protectors of the faith. But listening to moderate islam is not cool. As I've gotten deeper into the reasons for ISIL actions it is clear they want to restore the faith to an early time before it was corrupted. (the muhammad seal on the flag, erasing borders, rejecting modern governments, worldwide caleph all drive at this goal). It leads to ISIL priorities: 1. destroy "bad" muslims to clean up the faith 2. attack "unbelievers" 3. attack Israel and the Western Crusaders. VS. al-Qaeda's which says 1. attack Israel and the Crusaders 2. correct local unbelievers 3. straighten out our confused brothers. VS. more "moderate" muslim militants that operate on "first comes Saturday, then comes Sunday" for people to kill but are happy to engage in Sunny-Shia bloodshed when it suits them. Legacypac (talk) 08:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

With what you say above I'm wondering if you still have the same view on ^[b]. My last comments on the "To b.." thread summarise the position. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, after 9/11, I remember there being a huge amount of criticism from Islamic communities against al-Qaeda, there is no related content in the al-Qaeda article. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Signedzzz

Thanks for all your efforts in preventing this editor from editing against consensus. We may not always see eye to eye, but this is very much appreciated. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested Move Discussion at Talk:American-led intervention in Syria

There is currently an requested move underway here and I am trying to get as many users to provide input as possible. I appreciate your contributions! - SantiLak (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 21 November

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

• On the ISIL territorial claims page, your edit caused a broken reference name (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) 00:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	This is in recognition of your many useful contributions over the months to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant article. Thank you. P123ct1 (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

ISIS: 2.6 "Military and arms"

I am copy-editing and have two small questions on this part. Where is Saini? I couldn't find it in WP or Google. Are the "plus 800 operating in Libya" Libyans or Tunisians? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for working on that and for asking. Should be Sinai_Peninsula in Egypt - that's a spelling error. There are reported to be 800 ISIL fighters located inside Libya now. I've not read anything about their nationality except that 300 came back to Libya. Legacypac (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe I was so dim as not to have spotted that should be "Sinai"! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

ISIS Lead paragraph

Thanks for replying so promptly on the Talk page about this. I know I made heavy weather of the consensus point over the second paragraph which Felino123 keeps reverting in some form or another, but I had to spell it out like that so he got the point that he cannot edit against consensus. He has repeatedly denied that there was consensus. You, Greg and I have now shown clearly that we agree that the paragraph should remain where it is, Felino123 doesn't, he can see that the consensus is against him, so he now understands (I hope) that if he continues reverting, it will be considered edit-warring. What a performance. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about this, but would you mind adding your voice here, please? It is the only way to prevent this becoming another long argument, I think. Whatever the consensus, it will be binding, after all. It is about the ordering of sentences in this much-disputed Lead paragraph. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

And now about Greg's changed wording in that sentence, so more consensus will be needed. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Restructuring of ISIS article

The main criticism I would have of that great restructuring of the article, which was very badly needed, is that the criticism comes before the rest, which I have explained on the Talk page, but I did let rip about some other things which were not to do with your restructuring! I hope you don't take any criticism personally, because it not meant to be; it is always the issue that is more important to me than individual editors, though it may not have looked like it the other day! I admit some of my remarks went a bit far then and apologise for it; I have redacted or struck out the worst ones. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes the criticism before details about ISIL was a weakness that someone changed already. Let's work cooperatively ok :) Legacypac (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing. :) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks

Are you going to restate/state your case regarding the sequencing of article content? Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye I think I did state my support already but will check. I think I'll just resequence it tonight.

You see the two reverts issue?

And I solved our "Govt" issue, and a few more issues but it will freak some ppl out. It is hard to fit a non-country in a country box and a almost state in a war factions box but I Found a Geopolitical organization infobox that is way more flexible then either of our current boxes. I've managed to combine the two infoboxes into one better infobox.The only thing not replicated it the red control map - just will not take it - but maybe we don't care, or just stick it outside the box or in the beside the box. It is already in the article anyway. Can you take a first look at it see if I missed anything? Legacypac (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why people see a connection between the detailed content on governance and the stand alone content of criticisms. I think people are looking too much at titles and ignoring actual content.

The infobox development looks positive. The country infobox was never relevant. You have added a new "Participant in the.." section which presents new content which may be more hatnote material but this is still valid. I removed the red splodge map and, if anything, it should go side by side with the war factions map but this still seems inappropriate to me. It looks good and, as far as I can remember, parallels use in other language versions on ISIL. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

No the particent in section is right out of the War factions (2nd) box. Legacypac (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

You have a section with "Participant in the Iraq War, the *Global War on Terrorism, the Iraqi insurgency, The Syrian Civil War, 2014 Libyan Civil War and Sinai insurgency" which is all good content but new. I have also been wondering about the use of "Wilayah" rather than "province". In most cases of the use of this word it gets translated. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

That section is from the top of the 2nd box verbatim. Province is good too. Legacypac (talk) 06:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I took the liberty of putting that section in small which fits with the war factions style. Perhaps I didn't recognise it because of the size difference. These links are more appropriate at the top of the page> Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac I made a couple of changes that you can review and also wondered about putting in a Status line for "Rebel group..." do you know how to do this or should we ask. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

What would you like it to say? - the new infobox says "Type Rebel group controlling territory" we can put anything for Rebel Group but not the Type part. Legacypac (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

report

Colleague, I've just reported your unpleasant behavior, here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Corriebertus (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

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.

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

added links pointing to Diyala, Salah al-Din, Barka, Barka and Haramayn

2014 ISIL takeover of Derna

added links pointing to Al Bayda and Haramayn

Abdul Rahim Muslimdost

added a link pointing to Kunar

ISIL territorial claims

added a link pointing to Haramayn

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

I fell obligated to warn you about the three revert rule. It states that anyone making reverts to the same page more than three times in a 24 hour period can be blocked for edit warring. You have made three reverts to Talk:2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa. This material does not fall under any of the exemptions. If you feel the material you are reverting is personal attacks you need to report it, not edit war. If you continue you can be blocked, please don't do that. -- GB fan 11:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack

“user pushing some agenda” (24 Nov 2014) is a personal attack. I’d like you to either corroborate that assault, or apologize for it at the same place where you made the assault. --Corriebertus (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you felt attacked Corriebertus, and I'm sorry I wrote that edit summary. I can't change an edit summary unfortunately. While it was an bit of an attack, apparently it is far from actionable as I've been subjected to FAR worse attacks by DocError and others with no consequences. I still should have been more gracious. I just wrote a detailed explanation here for you. Can we both learn from this and work cooperatively? Legacypac (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		For keeping cool when the accusations and insults were running white hot, and reminding us all of the kind of world that is still possible for us to strive for. Inthefastlane (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The large body of content beyond the beheadings

I was thinking that a new broader name for the beheadings article might be: Killing of captives by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant‎. This could also fit more accurately into Category:Killing of captives by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant‎. My thoughts are that the article currently focusses on spectacle and fillmed killings that will indicate a low level of Western focussed deaths rather than presenting a bigger picture/broader view of action in 'SIL controlled areas. Other things that also may be of note is that I have further populated Category:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant activities which gives a category link to a new (tiny stub) article on Human rights under the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. I choose Human rights as a base for a topic on the basis that WP has a number of articles on "Human rights in XXX" and not so many on Ethnic cleansing in the same way. Human rights is also the broader topic. Cheers. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

There is overlap between War crimes and human rights abuses but significant differences too. I think the stub you started could be structured along the headings here Human_rights#Violations, just going point by point, and perhaps another one on War crimes with sections by type of war crime, then link the two with See also and in text references across. I think leave beheadings alone as a subset of the crimes and abuses and focus on the big picture but with more details, which becomes daughter article of ISIL for the growing out of control war crimes/human rights abuse section. For example, I just read they executed two men for homosexuality - a different category of human rights abuse from "treatment of civilians" or mass killing of captives. Legacypac (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I have added this edit as a start. I think that the context of a larger context must be maintained. I think that the group may be conscious to present their actions as them verses the west which presents a very distorted view of the situation. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

here's some hippy Hebrew

In case its your thing -here. "Still it will come, peace upon us; still it will come, peace upon us; still it will come, peace upon us; and upon everyone, Peace upon us and upon everyone, Peace Peace. Peace upon us and upon everyone." It does more like that. It was poignant in Israel. Hear it through. hope you enjoy Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Unilateral

I don't know if you had a misunderstanding on the recent Fist paragraph thread on talk ISIL. A proposal was made. P123ct1 supported. You added comment. I commented to maintain my preference for the original proposal but also to suggest different wording to your alternative. You then unilaterally changed the article page to your chosen version and without notification of the change being made on the related talk page thread.

In the case of marginal consensus in favour of an option one action that I have taken is to make a change at an early stage; make notification on the talk page with a done template and do this in the context of a comment such as "not wanting to close the discussion but 'done'. Feel free to continue discussion to see if a revert is necessary."

I appreciate a great many of your inputs on the page and also appreciate that your edit as just mentioned was going in the direction of the related proposal. What I don't appreciate is that you can make either sweeping or smaller scale changes and then leave it to others to raise the issues regarding agreement on talk pages and in other places. Queries may be raised to you or comments may be made about your edits with you being pinged and it seems to be a low priority of your to respond. There should be nothing for you to respond to. Here is another example of a presentation of changes for agreement. Please, where possible, do not leave editors in What? How? When? situations. It has been noted that have the range of contributors that it once had and I think it is down to all of us to make it an inclusive environment. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Ya misunderstanding. I thought you supported my proposed wording with a slight change. I always respond to pings, but sometimes I find places where I was mentioned but never saw the ping, which makes me wonder if the ping system is reliable. Let's go back and look at the wording and make sure we all agree on it. Legacypac (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

ISIL edits

I am not sure if this was your edit in ISIL recently: "UNESCO's Director General warns that ISIL is destroying Iraq's cultural heritage in what she termed "cultural cleansing". UNESCO reports examples of", and the sentence stops there. Did you intend to add something? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Good catch on the fragment P123ct1. It is all fixed now. I also added to the section on destruction of cultural and religious history - maybe you can check that over too? Legacypac (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'll look at that. When you added more info on Misty Buswell, I think you may have inadvertently edited on an old version or something, as I am sure you didn't mean to revert so many changes as appear there! (Some of them were my copy-eds, e.g. the wikilink for "NGO", the "takfiri" wikilink, some in your report on child soldiers, and my revert putting the terrorist designations back to where they were in "Criticism".) These changes must be accidental, surely. I know Gazkthul once did this accidentally when he was only trying to change one passage, so it must be easy to do! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

For sure, I never intended to modify anything but the two subsections I edited. Should I revert- you can revert if that helps. I can't fix it right now due to real life pressures. Legacypac (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It's late here (UK), so if I can't do a simple revert (may be complicated), I'll put a note on the Talk page to say don't panic to editors. I've already informed Greg as he was upset earlier about the positioning of the terrorist designation part. Do you remember I did this once and you jokingly said I should be put in the stocks and pelted? Had forgotten about that until just now. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2

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.

2014 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu ramming attack

added a link pointing to Power Play

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

added a link pointing to Hague Conventions

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit-Warring Noticeboard

I was looking through zzz's edits and discovered that you have just taken him to the Edit-Warring Noticeboard. I support you in that. He clearly has every intention of continuing to edit-war, after originally saying he would not edit the page any more and, as Gregkaye said, I am all for nipping trouble in the bud once it becomes clear what an editor's intentions are or what sort of behaviour they are likely to pursue. When that point is reached is a matter of judgment, of course, but in this case I think it is very obvious that point has been reached. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I have just read his "defence" on the Edit-Warring Noticeboard. I cannot believe he thinks that red herring will impress whoever adjudicates this. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Page move

Hi Legacypac,

The close you performed at Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant related events is malformed as of this posting, and I am unhappy that you performed the move as an involved editor over objections. In fact, as many editors opposed as supported the move, so the comment that you moved the page to "the title agreed to here" seems incorrect. The new title still has problematic grammar. It would have been better to revert this to the old title and have someone else close the original discussion. Would you mind a reversion to the last open version of the request? Dekimasuよ! 01:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I tried reverting to the old title was not possible after 3 other moves to inappropriate Islamic State title. As I read it, there was discussion of several alternatives but no clear support for anything else. Page now protected, so if you feel strongly about it, start an RM and ping involved editors. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you will revert the close, I can move the page back to wait for an outside closer or more input. (The close is still malformed.) Dekimasuよ! 05:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I was not even trying to change the page name. I can't see the point of the move from the old name anyway. I only wanted to get rid of the inappropriate names. You have admin tools, I don't care much either way and will not complain. Legacypac (talk) 05:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Cheers. The move protection is still in place, so things should be fine now. Dekimasuよ! 06:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

ISIS edit

I know you rewrote this part, but there must be something missing, because it reads: "There are thousands to tens of thousands of foreign fighters in ISIL's ranks. Estimates include nearly 1,000 from Chechnya (source 1), including senior commander Abu Omar al-Shishani, perhaps 500 or so more from France, Britain, and elsewhere in Europe (source 2), more than 2,000 Europeans and 100 Americans, (source 3) and around 1,000 Turk (source 4). By October 2014, 2,400–3,000 Tunisians (source 5) and were fighting in Iraq and Syria." Some of it seems to be quote but where does it start, and it says 500 from Europe and then 2,000 from Europe. What went wrong? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 07:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I remember that. Originally it was a series of sentences I condensed. Different sources=different numbers of europeans. Legacypac (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You have "In Iraq and Syria, ISIL uses many existing boundaries of provinces— which they call wilayah—to subdivide its claimed territory". I thought "wilaya" was the name for provinces generally, not just ISIL's name for them. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Administrative divisions of Iraq lists 18 muhafazah, also known as governorates or provinces. [Governorates of Syria]] is divided into fourteen governorates, or Muhafazah (which can also be translated province). Wilayah is usually translated as "province", rarely as "governorate". They choose the word Wilayah because that is the word used in the last caliphate for its constituent parts. There appears to be no big functional difference between the terms which are all used in various countries. I went with an english word that means both arabic terms followed by ISILs arabic word. Legacypac (talk) 08:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I have altered it to "In Iraq and Syria, ISIL uses many existing boundaries of provinces—wilayah—to subdivide its claimed territory"? Is that accurate? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

that sort of drops the fact ISIL calls them Wilayah, which is useful to know when reading on. Not a big deal though as the reader can figure it out.Legacypac (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

This is what I said before – I deleted it as I thought I had misunderstood, but you have confirmed I was right after all:

"So to make it clear that these "wilayah" are ISIL's, not the general "wilayah", what about this:

"In Iraq and Syria, ISIL uses many of the existing boundaries of provinces to subdivide its claimed territory; it calls these divisions wilayah."?

I think that would help readers who understand "wilayah" to mean provinces in general, as I did, when there were other references to "wilayah" in this article (which have now been cut)."

Is that more accurate? There are then the links to fill out this information as you say. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"In Iraq and Syria, ISIL uses many of the existing Governorate boundaries to subdivide its claimed territory; it calls these divisions wilayah." I think most English speakers can understand Governorate, which is the more correct term and the linking helps further. Legacypac (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1: See this essay about ISIL governance in Syrian territories [14].GreyShark (dibra) 15:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned

Hello Legacypac. Your edits were mentioned in Signedzzz's ban appeal at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive267#Appealing my topic ban. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Gojoseon

At Gojoseon, I've provided evidence that Cold Season's edit is biased and gives undue weight to the Gija theory. There is also an ongoing RFC. If you have the time, can you please consider the evidence in light of your involvement in what Cold Season and Zanhe calls "consensus"? Cydevil38 (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I am extremely disheartened and disappointed in your concurrence of my "disruptive behavior", and your complete ignorance of my good-faith request to look over the details of my side of the story. Cold Season's edit was bold, on a contentious topic, and it was without consensus nor discussion. What you claim in your initial involvement that this is about "events 2000 years ago" is actually events 4000 and 3000 years ago. You said you looked into this matter in detail, but I must question if you have even read the source at dispute. As for the allegation regarding "North Korean propaganda", I was referring to another previous source in the article(허종호, An Introduction to Gojoseon's History, 사회과학원 (2001) ISBN 89-89524-04-0), which I have mistaken as a part of Cold Season's edit. It was not even my main position. My main position was that Cold Season has distorted the book State Formation in Korea by Gina Barnes, and he has completely ignored the given structure which already dealt with all three legends. Later I have explained in detail that in State Formation in Korea the Gija theory is described by most cited scholars as a Chinese fabrication, has nothing to do with Gojoseon, and is ignored. Since you have involved yourself in this, I'd like you to address to the veracity of your claim that you have actually looked into this matter in detail; whether you have looked through the pre-bold edit article[15] which already dealt with all the legends concerned in detail[16][17][18] as different periods in Gojoseon history, and whether you actually read the relevant part of State Formation in Korea. I consider this very serious as you are asking for a topic ban on me on all matters related to Korea, and I very much suspect that you have given this much thought on both the subject matter and my behavior. Cydevil38 (talk) 07:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at your recent pattern of behavior and commented on that. I'm not an expert in the subject matter. Its wikipedia, you can't control everything. If you cite your edits really well they tend to stay, if you edit war over content you tend to lose your ability to edit. In a dispute try to use sources to convince the other editors. For stuff 2000-4000 years ago we know so little about anything that happened that its going to be tough to prove much of anything definitely especially if scholars disagree. Legacypac (talk) 08:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Per WP:Consensus, "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Cold Season's bold edit was a controversial edit made with no discussion, nor consensus. Discussion after the bold edit also did not establish consensus. What I expected was the stable version to be retained until some consensus was to be reached. I thought the prudent course was merging Founding Legend with Gija Joseon and its Controversy, under two subsections, Dangun myth and Gija and its controversy. I was occupied at the moment, so I made what arguments I can before making a thorough and detailed response. I know I am not in control of everything at Wikipedia, which was why I was being patient, including your involvement as a neutral editor. I even conceded to instead insert a NPOV tag instead of reverting the bold edit, which Zanhe and Cold Season reverted as well. And this ANI shitstorm started, to which you have once again contributed to.

You say that I should try to use sources. In case you didn't know, Cold Season did not cite multiple sources; they were all copied from a single source, State Formation in Korea by Gina Barnes[19]. I did refer to the source in question multiple times, that it was misinterpreted by Cold Season and gives Gija undue weight: "It is even mentioned in Barne's book that Gija legend is a Chinese fabrication." "As explained in the book by Barnes, Gija is a later fabrication and it has nothing to do with Gojoseon." Then you involved yourself in this discussion, saying that you "I just looked at this in detail because I love history." This prompted Cold Season and Zanhe to establish that there was "consensus" by three users(themselves and yourself), including an uninvolved user(yourself). If you haven't given much thought on article and the subject at hand, it really does negatively disrupt discussion, as you were a neutral editor. When I was no longer unoccupied, I made a detailed rebuttal, at the talk, and I asked you in good faith to consider the evidence. You did not address that at all, and went onto the ANI page to concur on my topic ban.

I admit I wasn't very detailed in my edit summaries, but I was so in my discussions, including my concern with misinterpretation of the source at question. I have presented evidence that of the eight cited authors in State Formation in Korea concerning Gija, all but one of them consider it a Chinese fabrication, has nothing to do with Gojoseon, or doesn't even mention it regarding the founding of Gojoseon. The only exception is Hatada, a Japanese scholar who exclusively subscribes to the Gija theory, ignores Dangun and the widely accepted Wiman, and considers Gojoseon a Chinese entity. In this regard, I did use the source in question to 'convince you of all people, but you completely ignored this request, and found your time to endorse ANI on my topic ban.

To this end, I'd like you to clarify your position on (1) your initial edit that you looked to this in detail and that (2) your claim at ANI that "Cydevil38's behavior was edit warring and completely unjustified by the presented sources. I have no idea what his point is continually reverting 2000 year old history." Again, this is a ANI topic ban is a serious matter. I'd expect POV editors like Zanhe and Cold Season throwaway their accusations, but I'd expect a neutral editor like yourself should give it some serious consideration before concurring on someone's topic ban. Cydevil38 (talk) 09:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit against consensus (again)

This edit I have reverted is virtually the same as the one you reverted three days ago. It is this editor edit-warring? Their Talk page is revealing, I think. ~ P-123 (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

looks like a well meaning editor but low volume editor who has created several unnecessary pages. I just put the issue to ANi. Legacypac (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

UN terrorist designation

Just to let you know, I looked closely at all those links you gave yesterday and as you say it is clear that the UN have designated ISIL as a terrorist organisation, by its association with al-Qaeda. The clincher is that article by the international lawyer (although there is technically some legal dispute about it, but that is lawyers for you). The wiki article on UNSC Resolution 1267 was particularly helpful and am glad it has been wikilinked in this article. I think someone may dispute the sanctions list citation, though, as the designation is not clear from that. It has to be read in conjunction with the wiki article to see how it all fits in, but there is nothing much we can do about that; the links are all there for anyone who wants to look into it. @Gregkaye: ~ P-123 (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Correct, and I'd add that ISIL disassociating themselves from AQ, or AQ disassociating themselves from ISIL, or mutual disassociation/outright war on each other does not remove the terrorist designation right? Legacypac (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so. That's a question for a lawyer! Interesting point. ~ P-123 (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Opponents – ISIS

Have just been copy-editing your new additions to the "Opponents" section and don't know if this earlier part will now need adjusting: "Note: These opponents list is restricted to: (a) States and non-State actors with military operations past, present or pending against ISIL in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Libya; (b) States directly supplying weapons to ground forces fighting ISIL; (c) transnational organizations coordinating or supporting such States." What that is referring to seems a little unclear now. (As a complete layman in this I think I can speak for the general reader here.) Perhaps you are intending to adjust this? (Don't know how the grammatical error, "These opponents list is ...", crept in - I remember copy-editing this note some time ago.) ~ P-123 (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Btw, please would you use the WP cite templates when adding footnotes and not leave bare URLs for other editors to convert. I have noticed quite a few that are yours. ~ P-123 (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

No nation recognizes ...

Sorry to drag this up again. It has bothered me before as you know. I thought the ongoing sovereign state discussion presented a good opportunity to iron out this sentence once and for all. We don't want another zzz to come along and criticize editors on the page! I just think the sentence needs to be recast slightly. I hope there are no hard feelings. P-123 (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Bluntly I think your arguments on the point are junk - especially the one on how Obama's speeches are crafted. I've just drafted 4 responses and deleted each because I can't come up with a response that is not insulting to you. Please drop the topic, add the cites provided to the article, delete your reply on talk, and let's just deal with editors that try to insert statements that are not verifiable. Legacypac (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that is exactly the sort of response I expected.[Deleted by P-123] I won't be deleting my comment as I do not think the sentence as it stands is verifiable. I think it is an important point. Let other editors comment and agree or disagree. P-123 (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This next edit was placed on my talk page by an editor who has otherwise expressed a desire for an interaction ban with me. I had to backspace the what I was starting to write here. I didn't know what to do with the content. I only delete for other people benefit so, sorry, I'm dumping it here:

• Another example of why editors are driving me away from this page. P-123 (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with me. P-123 you perhaps you are entitled to replace content on my page. I really don't know the rules but I will collapse as irrelevant. Please don't scatter your criticism. You know how procedures work and can take any personal action you want. Fight battles directly. Represent content directly. Keep within guidelines. It you want to engage in dialogue with me here about related matters I will be happy to hear you out but you were recently appealing for an interaction ban. GregKaye ✍♪ 22:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

(Be careful. I said I was "tempted" to ask for an IBAN.) P-123 (talk)

P-123 this is another occasion where specifying would really help. Which sentence? Visiting editors won't have a clue. GregKaye ✍♪ 22:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Have some respect for another editor's Talk page, please. P-123 (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 Have some respect for edits and threads, please. I didn't know what to do with this. I apologised for action. I acted as I wanted. Legacypac can do as s/he wants from the situation. GregKaye ✍♪ 23:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about this, Legacypac. P-123 (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I respect your editing most of the time but you are over analysing stuff in the abstract. Its wikipedia - anyone can edit and will. Its not goin to be perfect. There is no need to copy edit and challenge every sentence until other editors loose patience with you. Legacypac (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a copy-editing point, though. It is one of two sentences that have stuck out like a sore thumb as unverified (you know the other, not your edit). The rest are fine. I can't seem to make you understand my point and perhaps that is my fault. Let us see what response the comments get. Maybe there will be none. Interesting that we are at opposite poles in our approach to editing. There were bound to be clashes, I suppose! Both types are needed. I admire your industry in providing facts for the article. P-123 (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Countries and groups at war with ISIL

I do not think that it is right to put Israel on any opponents list. At most another listing may be added but on supporters or something. GregKaye ✍♪ 07:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

ISIL Wilayats

Legacy, i'm really appreciating your work and as a good faith would like to refrain from edit-warring on ISIL territorial claims subarticles. However, please note that your blanking is contrary to WP:BRD, specially in light of 3 delete discussions, currently ongoing. Please refrain from blanking until the discussions are concluded and of course it would be best if all Wilayat articles would have been put under a single deletion proposal.GreyShark (dibra) 20:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to discuss. I feel your restoring of these stubs is contrary to BRD because one was already deleted and others were correctly redirected. At least one other is headed for full deletion. All have very limited, thinly sourced content, that is unlikely to be expandable. When you search the titles often only WP comes up. Why not first develop a bit of content under ISIL territorial claims to justify the need for stand alone articles? Are you restoring these because you think they are needed or because of a perceived procedural issue? Legacypac (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I would certainly agree to merge some of them - especially those with no evidence of existence like Syrian coast Wilaya, but several are very much notable - the ar-Raqqa Wilaya (fully controlled by ISIL for many months), the Derna Wilaya in Libya (basically a terrorist group with territorial control, claiming allegiance to ISIL), Sinai Wilaya (a splinter terrorist group from Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis). Also i would like to ask you to self revert of Wilayat Haleb (ISIL) [20], where you said "...daesh does not even control this area, so how can they have a government there?", but Daesh do actually control most of the Syrian Aleppo Governorate including the outskirts of Aleppo city and most of Kobane Canton (see the map), having a full administration setup. See [21],[22],[23].GreyShark (dibra) 15:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The content is better dealt with in ISIL territorial claims (where I originally put the list of claimed divisions, and for divisions with limited info). There is a better article already at 2014 ISIL takeover of Derna. For Raqqa, the model for ISIL governance, info should be included in the main ISIL article and the ISIL territorial claims. Around Kobani they have not held ground long enough to establish anything much, it's very much a war zone, with shifting fronts. ABM or Province of Sinai needs an article because it is outside Iraq and Syria and part of a different conflict, but they don't seem to really govern anything, just a terrorist group that blows things up, and the article should reflect terrorist group not a regional government structure. Something like ISIL in Sinai. Setting up nearly 20 provincial articles only legitimizes them on par with Iraqi Governorates or US States, and most are just fiction or not notable. Legacypac (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Listen, i didn't say they have an administration of Kobani; i said they have administration of Aleppo Wilayat (including city of Aleppo and Kobani area, both battlefields), but they do control most of Aleppo province on the ground and have a functional Wilayat - it is clearly described here. On the issue of ISIL in Sinai - i don't mind to rename the Wilayat al-Sina (ISIL) to ISIL in Sinai, but why do you want to delete it? let's just rename it and it is fine from both views (we can say in the article that they call themselves a Wilayah of ISIL, but don't control any ground as of 2014).GreyShark (dibra) 19:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm still ok with ISIL in Sinai and will help you build it Grayshark09 with the focus on the group rather then a geographic entity. Legacypac (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KIA. 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) 09:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks 2

I won't go into details but WP seems to be getting on top of me at the moment. The thanks really lifted and was much appreciated

GregKaye ✍♪ 19:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your message and I understand why you made it. I have left this message with GraniteSand. P-123 (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123, I do not understand what you mean in your first sentence and do not understand why you are posting here. You have given unsolicited comment on another users talk page: "I hope you can knock some sense into them". To me this is ludicrous POV pushing and your ongoing belligerent and against guideline campaigning, of which you know better, has got to stop. Why did you post here? 10 minutes before your edit you agreed to leave me in peace. How is this not hounding? If you do want to reply then I suggest you do so on your talk page. After all the contention that you have recently raised over interaction, your post here is not appreciated. 04:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC) GregKaye ✍♪ 04:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Civility in war

I've only just learned that its not an oxymoron. Out of personal interest can you advise as to whether the Syrian Civil War is a civil war? ty GregKaye ✍♪ 03:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

There are a few definitions here: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Civil_war Using the US Army definition: A war between factions of the same country there are five criteria for international recognition of this status: 1. the contestants must control territory (govt, kurds, ISIL, Opposition) have a functioning government (Kurds for sure by public consent, ISIL by brut force) enjoy some foreign recognition (Opposition is officially recognized as legitimate govt by many countries) , have identifiable regular armed forces (true of all sides), and engage in major military operations (yes). Deaths are also over 1000 a year.

The conflict started as a revolution, which is basically a type of conflict less serious then a civil war. Its also not an international war as no foreign country has invaded, or apparently plans to invade. International assistance to civil war sides is common, and does not make a civil war not a civil war. Legacypac (talk) 07:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Legacypac, Thanks for that. I would have replied earlier but sadly I've been busy. I will be interested to see how the Iraq debate turns out.

I've just noticed the article Civil war in Iraq (2006–07) I'm guessing that this is the one for the proposed move. Otherwise I think there should be consistency the other way. GregKaye ✍♪ 19:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

What should be done for pro-ISIL Wilayat type articles?

As you know, many articles are being created which are Wilayat type most of which are deleted or nominated for deletion, thanks to you and to Spirit of Eagle for observing this problem. Now, should we wait for them to be created and then nominate them for deletion (because 99.99 precent of them are not notable and just propaganda) ? or should we stop their creation? How? Mhhossein (talk) 13:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The editor that started most of them was indef banned. You could ask for the deleted titles to be SALTed. Problem is there are many valid spelling variations. If new ones get created we can use speedy deletion tags. Legacypac (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

How's blacklisting those titles going on? Mhhossein (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Sign?

Hi Legacypac. Can you please sign this ANI edit. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, happy Christmas to you.

You reverted my clearing of my own talk page here [24] - please don't do that again. If I choose to clear my own talk, that's my own affair.

If you would like to discuss any of my edits, let me know.

Seasonal greetings. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

You very inappropriately disrupted WP by tagging my new article to prove a point. Go away please. Legacypac (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Archive notification

In the thread about bot archival on talk:ISIL I was writing:

Legacypac you have unilaterally changed the archival settings to 21 days, here which may not be of significance other than you didn't leave notification of your actions ...

I have also changed the display settings to 21 days. I agree with others that there are own and accountability issues involved. I'm glad though that I pulled myself back. I was shocked to find that, what I regard to be my recent mirroring behaviours in one aspect of editing may have affected me elsewhere. GregKaye ✍♪ 18:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I even did that correctly, but anyway, I've seen it changed many times by many users without comment. I left an edit summary though and thought I commented in the thread. Legacypac (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Your citations edit - ISIS

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Noticed your edit summary in "Revision history". Liked your idea of adding more citations for readers who don't want to read the rest of the article. Should this practice be copied for other parts of this very long article that have sparse citations? P-123 (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

At the AN/I have turned your "Comment" into a heading and moved your comments beneath it, in an effort to make your contribution stand out, as you said the layout of comments around that point was confusing. I hope this is all right. I have probably broken some rule by doing this, but it was done with good intent. If you want it reverted, I can do that. P-123 (talk) 23:41, 28 Deember 2014 (UTC)

That last message was crazy, lol. Feel I have to justify my every word and action - AN/I is getting to me. :( P-123 (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Syrian civil war

Agree with you about Israel. As for Iraqi Kurdistan, they are openly working with the Coalition in Iraqi itself, but no evidence of an open co-operation in Syria has emerged. EkoGraf (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The US and UK trained them, lobbied Turkey and facilitated transit to Kobani for the Peshmerga, and are coordinating airstrikes with the Kurds generally, all indicate to me they are coalition ground troops. That is how they show on American-led intervention in SyriaLegacypac (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

I really appreciate your intervention in the AN/I with a proposed solution. You went out of your way to do that when you need not have done. Thanks. P-123 (talk) 09:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Shaiwatna Kupratakul

The information is on the talk page. All Igor wanted was to cite the content as a large section of it was uncited. That's why I reverted my edit. He said to me that he removed it so that others could cite it on the talk page and that if it didn't belong then it was gone. "Win-win". [[25]]. TF ^{{ Contribs }} 09:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stuart Jones. 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) 09:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Igor the facetious xmas bunny

Could you please not go to articles you haven't edited before to tangle with Igor the facetious xmas bunny. Obviously there is animosity between the two of you, and that can cause people to act impetuously. To avoid conflict, I am asking both of you to stop fighting. Simply let Igor do as he will. If he's doing wrong, it will become evident and any deep hole he digs for himself will swallow him. When you get in there and fight over every edit it just muddies the waters. Jehochman ^Talk 19:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

In case you've missed the ping, this came up at my talk page, and I've left a note to you there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

constitucion

Many thanks for your contribution to this article it was much appreciated

Please can you review the recent edits made after your improvements to this page. Winkelvi doesnt appear to be interested in improving the article and instead seems to favour deleting large parts of interesting and viable information. Surely contributors should contribute at least equivalent of what they delete. Winkelvi seems to enjoy deleting others work. Citing reasons such as foreign language sources. Thank you in advance for your rationailty. 30/12/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.222.243.182 (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

About the ISIL revert

I have reverted my edit but please consider this, for example only you can add the word "counter" only to a movement or a strategy like "counter the islamic state threat".Secondly I think conflict sounds a bit ridiculous when paired the less significant opponents at war with the IS i.e other conflicts.Please let me know what you think of this.Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason foren daniel (talk • contribs) 05:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Further discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have changed the heading preceding my AN/I edit of 12:11, 30 December 2014 "More back and forth" to "Further discussion" which is a repeated heading title. I hope that this is alright.

As you know there have been extraordinarily long running issues between me and P-123 and this has in the lead to Christmas led to an extraordinary amount of, as I see it, largely unsubstantiated content on administrator and suspected administrator threads mainly started by P-123. I am shattered and exhausted with this and, as I see it, this is one chance to actually get things resolved. P-123 suggested the AN/I. I think it fair to have the opportunity to pursue it.

The situation has shown signs of being frosty with this editor habitually deleting messages that I have placed on his/her talk page and me asking that content not be placed on mine unless warranted by specific reason. That is the situation at present.

10:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Ping: PBS GregKaye 10:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe you are both fighting for the sake of fighting. No one else is really interested in reading all the back and forth. I doubt any Admin is going to sanction anyone unless they sanction both of you to stop the fight. I don't like much of the stuff he writes esp misunderstanding NPOV but you, me or anyone is not going to change his mind, so I suggest moving on and just disengaging. All sorts of crazy behavior is tolerated on Wikipedia sadly. Just work with me to keep ISIL balanced with actual edits, and ignore the efforts to bait and annoy. Legacypac (talk) 10:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Who knows, there may be a response from admin that may get through. As I said, once the AN/I is done, I am done. It's depressing. I don't know why WP bothers with guidelines that it does not support or enforce. For the last three weeks I have not wanted any of this. Multiple threads were started about me left and right. I started one myself but this was done in the context of what felt like an onslaught. A new thread was started in the early hours of Christmas Day. That's the context. Anyway, happy new year. I hope it brings you peace. GregKaye 14:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Warning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Personal attacks and insults like this are not acceptable here. It is acceptable to privately disagree with another Wikipedian, however plastering this sort of content over multiple talk pages is not the way to resolve disputes. Knock it off, please. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC).

Please make formal report to Wikipedia. Nestwiki (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blanking an article during RFD

Legacy, your blanking of an article during an RFD procedure is a serious violation of Wikipedia guidelines, since this is not the first time you are doing it, i would like to make sure, you are aware of WP:SCWGS sanctions - which prohibit edit-warring on Syrian Civil War and ISIL related articles. I have a lot of respect for your edits, but there has been a very bad faith editing on your behalf recently, some in violation of WP:SCWGS. Have a happy new year and i hope we shall collaborate in the future.GreyShark (dibra) 08:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Not clear how redirecting an article to it's twin is violating the community sanctions. How do you explain setting up a new redirect after almost 30 similar articles and redirects were deleted by community action? I thought you were better then that kind of editing. Happy new year too . Legacypac (talk) 08:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Provinces of ISIL

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

G4 is for reposts. The content is completely different, and tagging it for G4 deletion is a serious abuse of the procedure. Yes, you must go through another debate. Nyttend (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Already started, and It's the same, well before the previous version was stripped down with all the deletes, but hey you never saw that. Legacypac (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

To the contrary, I reviewed multiple deleted revisions and multiple revisions of this page, and no deleted revision is even close to the current page. Did you seriously think that all of the edits by 175.110.139.126 caused it to end up being identical to the deleted content? Likewise, what about the original edit to which you reverted? Now that I've looked at every deleted revision, I can assure you that every deleted revision was a navbox with a list of links; it was never close to being simply ISIL has large number of self proclaimed provinces. Nyttend (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the page creation edit was just a throw-a-way one liner. Maybe I'm not clear on how close the pages need to be to qualify for G4. The edits by IP 126 created a nav box with substantially similar content to the nav box deleted at Template:Wilayats of ISIL even using the contrived format Wilayat xyz (ISIL) for each of the links. The box appearance was a little different sure, but content and purpose is the same. The major difference is that the Template:Wilayats of ISIL box linked to a bunch of pages that were mostly redirects to the ISIL territorial claims or stub articles. Since those article were all deleted the new version Template:Provinces of ISIL contained 11 links to ISIL territorial claims piped with the deleted redirect and stub article titles. To me this is recreation of a deleted template in an attempted workaround the previous 28 deletions made after community input across 7 debates so far that rejected the template and all the (this time piped) link names inside it - even as redirects. Your view might be different. Legacypac (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deleting of your comment on an admin's talk page

FYI User talk:P-123#Blocked for 48 hours -- PBS (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

User talk:193.109.196.115

I saw the threat and the swearing but I can't block for either of those. I could have used edit warring but I saw BLP in the drop down list of block reasons first. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Enough

Your comment on user talk:P-123 diff, and all of your comments to User talk:GregKaye after this one were not constructive.[26]

You are not to add a comment to either of those user's talk pages for at least a week unless they first leave a message on your talk page. If you prefer I can make this formal by invoking the ISIL general sanctions, but I would prefer to leave it informal and hope that you will see that it is time to let things quieten down.[27] -- PBS (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I'm sick of that drama. You (and me) try to help and all you (and me) get is flack. Already decided to stay away from them and do something more interesting. Legacypac (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Wilayat Algeria (ISIL)

Hey, this redirect is nominated for deletion but there's no tag showing this matter in the redirect page! Mhhossein (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Great catch. The redirect was deleted about 1/2 way through the discussion, but then LightandDark2000 recreated it about an hour later. I've just renominated it for speedy deletion. Legacypac (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. LightandDark2000 should've respected the consensus. Mhhossein (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Alleged Barry Goldwater quote

At the Edward Brooke talk page: you removed the comment as racist, but actually, in that time during the 60s, Blacks were called "Negro" not just by non-Blacks but by Blacks as well. It was not seen as racist. Just saying. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are talking about - perhaps you confused my edit with someone elses? Legacypac (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Geez, so sorry. I can't believe I looked at the diff backwards. Time to pack it in for the night, I think! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Foreign fighters article

Here's something I was about to enter at Talk:ISIL but didn't want to derail your thread.

There may be many possible titles that could be used but suggestions may also include International reaction to foreign fighters in Islamist rebel groups, International response to foreign fighters in rebel groups based in Iraq and Syria or International response to foreign fighters in rebel groups in the Middle East. 1, 2, 3, 4.

These are just outsider thoughts and I realise that you have done a lot more research into this type of topic than me. GregKaye 10:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I just threw out an idea for a title and am looking for a better one. I keep reading about countries trying to do something about the problem - it is an official goal of the Counter ISIL coalition too. ISIL says "come join the caliphate" but everyone else says its illegal. For example Malaysia just arrested 3 headed for ISIL, and UK stopped young girls headed to Syria. Maybe International efforts to stop jihadists Legacypac (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. As you know I have long personally regarded "Jihadist" as being what I have come to discover is called a value laden label. The creation of such an article would be up to you but I would counsel something like International responses to militant Islamists. Jihad is a rarely mentioned but central concept in the Quran where as jihadism, as you know, is something that is by definition further out towards the fringes of Islamic doctrines. Islamism is the term more widely used in sources. The problem as I see it is either Islamist's who attempt to exert pressure through international terrorist attack of other radicals that have groups that operate locally against other denominations of Islam or other religion. GregKaye 11:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Revert

Thanks for the revert and explaining to Mhhossein. P-123 (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Filemover req

I don't mean you are not qualified for Filemover - I mean you are in the wrong page. Most files used on English Wikipedia is hosted on Commons (Except for Fair Use images).

But based on your contributions on Commons, I would like you to see more filemove request before granting you the filemover there. — Revi 06:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

About the edits to the ISIL header

You must understand that ISIL is referred to by the media by many names Daʿish,DAESH,Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or simply by Islamic state, it would be unwise removing these titles and threby confusing the readers who identify or get information from the article, so I strongly suggest you to undo those changes.Thank you. Update stormtrooper (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you look at the finished product of my edits you will find that all the names are there in the first paragraph. Please carefully read this article and relevant references before making edits - it got about 600,000 reads last month, so we want to get it right. Legacypac (talk) 08:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Why did you Delete the new section: Justification based on religious texts

Reverting another persons edits without discussing them or notifying is incredibly rude, it indicates the persons hard work compiling information from various sources and putting them to order.It looks like yo have a history of doing this looking at other user's reaction from talk pages. I see that you have a history of edit wars all these traits are not the doings of a constructive editor.So being a gentleman I invite you to discuss things like human beings do and the last thing you would want is, to get involved in an edit war are result your account getting blocked. Update stormtrooper (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not revert your edit, I moved it to the talk page temporarily with comments for improvement. Kindly read WP:AGF and refrain from talking about blocking me or my edit history - I've got over 5000 edits since 2007 while you joined 5 days ago. I am happy to work with you, but you'll have difficulties here with other editors with the combative attitude you are displaying so far toward me. Legacypac (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You're clearly denying what you actually did, I do not understand what you meant by stating that you joined in 2007, does that mean you're more comparatively more educated and that I should learn from you, you really seem like a rude person who cannot be reasoned with.I'm reverting your changes, try to be more nice next time I'm done talking to you. Update stormtrooper (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you a child? Legacypac (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Your comment accusing me of acting like a child describes what kind of a person you are.Kindly read WP:AGF, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Update stormtrooper (talk • contribs) 09:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No it was a sincere question because your writing contains child like mistakes and your maturity level seems childlike. You restored without commenting on my concerns on the talk page. That is bad. Legacypac (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The history of a person describes what kind of a person he is, justifiably speaking the person is subject to change or maybe he wont.I became frustrated because you reverted my edit which I compiled and corrected grammatical errors.i clearly do not know what you are talking about. Update stormtrooper (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I copied to the talk page - where it has its own section. Please discuss there, not here where few will see your comments. Legacypac (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

And you've done it again. What is wrong with you, I told you to notify me and wait for my comment. Update stormtrooper (talk) 09:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

If you revert again I will take this for Administrative action. Use the article talk page. Legacypac (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay I accept that it is my fault because I did not insert the citations near the corresponding sentences, but that doesn't mean you can revert the edit. Update stormtrooper (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You're the one who moved the passage to the talk page yet you seem to have not made any changes to it.What are you doing? Update stormtrooper (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

DONE, the matter is closed.I have copy edited and placed citation references near the claims. Jason foren daniel (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice of talk

Hello legacypac, an editor has posted something on my talk page which I have now given due consideration to. I do not know what the policy is here but I would like to inform you that I will discuss some of your points on my talk page. I will tag your name into my reply on my talk page so you are aware. Mbcap (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Move moratorium

I will not extend the move moratorium on ISIL. The moratorium has been very successful in damping down the page title dispute, but it is important that the page title is debated from time to time. I have no idea what is the most frequently used name for this organisation, but it is important that this is debated and if there is a consensus to move based on the WP:AT policy parameters that it is implemented. Once the debate is over there is no reason why a new moratorium should not be imposed under the general sanctions if in the judgement of an administrator it is desirable. -- PBS (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I expect we should have a debate. My preference is to extend the moratorium after the debate. So do we have open season for move requests or focus the issue into one debate on possible names vs no change. Legacypac (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

About the claimed justification based on religious text

I think the "claimed justification based on religious text" header should receive a separate section because ISIL is not only accused of persecuting non-Muslims but also shia Muslims ,its civilians, attacking members of the press,organ trafficking,destruction of non-muslim cultural heritage,beheadings and using child soldiers they don't do all this evil things just because they want to, they claim religious justification for everything they do and also because it receives widespread coverage from international media.If you observe what ISIS fighters are doing their actions have something in common with their justification based on their religious text.I want to thank you for your contributions and make this articl more meaningful.So what do you think it should have a special section right.ref>Harding, Luke (25 August 2014). "Isis accused of ethnic cleansing as story of Shia prison massacre emerges". The Guardian. Irbil. Retrieved 5 January 2015. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)</ref>.I've just added this cited reference for an example, read all the citations listed under human rights abuse and you will know what I'm talking about.Sorry forgot to sign my post.----Jason foren daniel (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I saw everything in that section as related to rape and slavery so moved it under that section. Of course the beheadings are justified too. Should we group all the justifications together, or put the justification for each group of crimes under the group of crimes? It still needs cleanup and someone retitled the section, which is good. I'm not an expert on Muslim religious texts so getting other editor input is really important. Legacypac (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

So,you should be thinking of expanding the section "claimed justification based on religious text" (I meant all in all contexts like justification remarks for each header AS A SEPERATE SECTION so readers dont have to search other sections it will give them a better understanding of ISIL justifications if you know what I'm talking about ---> shia Muslims ,its civilians, attacking members of the press,organ trafficking,destruction of non-muslim cultural heritage,beheadings and child soldiers), I'm working on generating extra content for the "claimed justification based on religious text" I will definitely post it in a few days, please ask the help of your friends i.e. other users to help generating content BY DOING A GOOGLE SEARCH OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. YOU SHOULD TOO.Somebody deleted the persecution of shia mislims line from the section.So the update storm trooper guy who created the section intended it to be a new section, he is probably a kid. We should work with new users I will ask him for help ,Thanks.----Jason foren daniel (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree with you Jason daniel, the section should not be under a heading, it should have its own section. Working on the expansion. I will add it after a few days. Looks like there are only a few good editors like you out there who can be reasoned with and I want you to thank you for improving the section by placing citations near the claims. Thank you for your time. Update stormtrooper (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest reading WP:AGF and taking it to heart. Nothing about your interactions with me indicates you have read that policy. My talk page is not the place to discuss your additions to the ISIL article. Go to the ISIL talk page where a broad range of editors will discuss. Legacypac (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sierra Leone Civil War

Hello, I just wanted to bring my revert of this edit (which you accepted) to your attention. I'm not going to be too critical of your decision to accept it because I'm very familiar with the subject and it still took me a few minutes to work out what was going on, but the IP moved one of he most prominent rebel leaders into the list of pro-government commanders. Please do make sure you check pending edits carefully, and if you're not sure, it's often best to leave it to somebody more familiar with the subject or ask at a relevant wikiproject. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I checked the guy's wikipage and it seemed like he was being listed on the right side, but it was confusing. Good multiple people watch these things. Legacypac (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice of my ANI comment

Hello Legacypac, I would like to let you know that I have contributed to an ANI discussion that you are a party to. When I went into the source on that page to put my comment in, I was told to inform users I would be speaking about so here I am. Mbcap (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. To clarify policy, you only need to notify the involved editor if you start an ANi or similar, not when replying to an existing discussion. I'm sorry its been a tough week for you. I'm sure not trying to make it worse. Good luck on those exams, and don't worry, Wikipedia will still be still be here when you have more time. Now I should go do something more productive myself. Legacypac (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. When I clicked on edit source to submit my comment, a big warning came saying I should inform and I was not sure if it applied to me. Here, here now Legacypac, apologies are not needed again, for my impression is that you have acted in good faith. Not to mention you have drove me, to plough through a tonne of policy for which I should be expressing gratitude. You have also been very patient with me during my interactions with you which due to my arrogance or partial understanding of policy, have sometimes led me to level direct accusation against you and maybe GregKaye as well. The aetiology of the difficult week is multi-factorial and the SP accusations were and are very hurtful. Now I am a duck as well because I quack like one. But I guess if the alleged duck is not killed, the duck will only get stronger. Now stop with your apologies, it makes me feel guilty. Mbcap (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if you were actually taken to SPI (Sock puppet investigation) but I've been taken there and I have never used a sock. If you are not Socking, just ignore the allegations. DocError misunderstood what I accused him of, and you fell for his misunderstanding. I meant he was stalking me (following me around Wikipedia) and canvassing other editors (by both going to talk pages and pinging them to comment against me). Pretty good evidence of both unacceptable activities. Legacypac (talk) 07:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

About a conflict between you and a new user

I was reading through your talk page and I noticed that you reverted an edit of a new user called Update storm trooper, he seems to be the original contributor to "justification based on religious text" section, he claims that he was working on the article which he posted for a long time.This new user is probably a teenager, I also noticed you reverted his edit without his consent which is WRONG, secondly by calling him names and hurting his feelings by calling him a child and telling him things like "your writing contains child like mistakes and your maturity level seems childlike" is undeniably RUDE and WRONG.You should be welcoming new users and provide a nice environment and work with the user, instead of driving him away.WRONG.WRONG---Jason foren daniel (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Ya I was not too nice, if u look above that he accused me of damaging the lead and was refusing to discuss, but ya I lost it. Legacypac (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure it was a misunderstanding, you might have made an intermediate edit and during that time he must have downloaded that copy of the page and misunderstood.Where is that kid????Jason foren daniel (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The first interaction was him posting to my talk page. It was weird because there was never a version where I removed names from the header even for a second, I was actually adding in the transliteration and making adjustments. I tried to engage him nicely but he got snarky and was assuming bad faith. Anyway, who knows, if he kept going like he was he was headed for a rough ride by other editors. Legacypac (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the proper way to remove content is to first notify the original contributor and then go your way. Update stormtrooper (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back. We don't need to notify a contributor that we are removing something from the article. Not how Wikipedia works.Most of the time no one pays any attention to who inserted something problematic. You and I don't own what we contribute we release it for anyone to edit or delete. Because you are a new contributor and because you evidently put a bunch of work into putting that section together, I was really kind and put it on the talk page to be discussed and improved rather than just deleting it for the issues I addressed on the talk page. Legacypac (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

If you really did care, why didnt you correct the mistakes yourself or posting message on the talk page to notify editors to correct the grammatical errors, instead of moving the entire section to the talk page.Genius Update stormtrooper (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I really do care. I moved the content because a) its a very high traffic article (600,000 readers a month) and therefore should be kept in good condition at all times and the inserted content had serious grammar issues and read like a draft b) the placement of the content was an issue I wanted to get other editor input on c) it made significant claims without cites placed in a way that could be quickly verified. d) parts were duplicative of other sections in the article e) I did not have time to edit it properly, and wanted more input on how to edit it. Also I did start to edit it, removing an inappropriate link to States with limited recognition for example, but you restored over my edits to your orginal version. Legacypac (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Athan Grace

Hello, Im not sure who to send this to but I already submitted to un-delete the article. As I stated in the other page "This page was deleted way to quickly with out any chance to even have a discussion. This article was also submitted for a speedy deletion contest. As stated before the this page has more sources cited and articles and this page does not Joey Bragg I ask to please reconsider and put a stub on the page for other people to contribute." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weeknd112 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I checked, you already took the correct step. I'm just reviewing new articles against criteria, no personal stake in this. Good luck. Legacypac (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't take things off my talk page please. I notice your username suggests some connection to a link I deleted from the page I nominated for deletion. Legacypac (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I am terribly sorry, I didn't see it going anywhere. So I thought i just take it off everything, but Gb is helping me now. What do you mean my username suggests a link?Weeknd112 (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)