|
|||
|
“ Jim Jones, David Koresh and Meir Kahane do not typify Christianity and Judaism in the eyes of the civilized West, but those same eyes are prone to see Osama bin Laden and Mullah Muhammad Omar as typifying Islam ” — Richard Bulliet
- WP:TALK#USE: "Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity.."
I didn't mean to thank you-just accidentally hit button on badly-designed mobile interface which also makes it almost impossible to post in correct place on a long talkpage. Sorry about that. Pam D 05:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I also created categories concerning the persecution of Copts, Greeks, Kurds, and Sami. If you wanted to nominate these categories for renaming, which I would be supportive of, perhaps they could be renamed something along the lines of Category:Anti-Assyrian sentiment, Category:Anti-Yazidi sentiment, etc? There are already a number of categories with that naming convention, such as Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment or Category:Anti-Polish sentiment. Would that work? Solar-Wind ( talk) 18:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello GregKaye, Based on my reading of your user page, I have gotten the impression that you may have expertise on Israel. Therefore and together with the fact that you are the only person whom I know to have an interest in Israel, I thought you may be able to provide some much needed perspective in a dispute. I was hoping you would help take over arbitration on an article where I feel my limited experience means that I am no longer able to help in carrying the discussion forward. I think if I carried on I would be doing a disservice to the other editors but mostly to readers as it is regarding insertion of a statement into the lead. I am also starting to question if I am using wiki policy in the right way when deciding if a sentence is a statement of fact. It is a very hot issue and the article is part of active arbitration remedies. I will not discuss the merits of the issue here but just ask that your read through the dispute and provide some valuable insight. I understand you may be busy so I completely understand if you say no. If you decide to go for it, let me know so that I can disengage from the conversation. The issue is the inclusion of a statement into the lead of the main Israel article. It is being discussed here:
/info/en/?search=Talk:Israel#Discussion_on_actual_wording
Regarding your post on my talk page, I will reply when I catch my breath. Mbcap ( talk) 14:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, GregKaye. After you were banned from interacting with P-123 just a few days ago, you have "thanked" the user twice, and also thanked some other editors for P-123-related edits. It's difficult to take that as simple gratitude, and it's certainly interaction. You need to stop poking holes through your IBAN right now. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC).
Thanks for you efforts to make the Israel article a NPOV article. Gouncbeatduke ( talk) 01:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC) |
Something you said got me digging in the tools. On one article you have 468 edits (5.68% of total) and I have 432 edits (5.25% of total) right now. Your first edit was 8 Sept and mine Aug 10. I checked several other users and found one recently active one at almost 3%, several at 0.5% and the highest I could find was at 28.74%. http://tools.wmflabs.org/usersearch/index.html Legacypac ( talk) 04:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
GregKaye you still need to change you signature to your new name, at the moment it links to your old name User:Gregkaye and User talk:Gregkaye and then is redirected back to your new name User:GregKaye. -- PBS ( talk) 12:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
see Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#Requested move December 2014 -- PBS ( talk) 12:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
As it happens I do not think any muppet will be jumping up and down at this move, but as an involved editor you should not have made it. It should have been obvious from my posting that I intended to close it as soon as I though enough time had passed for those who wished to express an opinion on my proposed dab extension had been given time to express an opinion. We have seen contested pre-emptive moves in this area and making one yourself means that in future you will not be able to criticise such move without exposing yourself to accusations of hypocrisy. -- PBS ( talk) 10:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Please consider moving the two pages, 'Category:Islamist terrorist incidents, 2000-2009' and 'Category:Islamist terrorist incidents, 2010-2019' to 'Category:Islamist terrorist incidents, 2000–2009' and 'Category:Islamist terrorist incidents, 2010–2019', respectively. -- Omnipaedista ( talk) 15:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
You need to move your expressed opinion up out of the "Further discussion" section or it may be missed by the closing admin. Most of the comment can stay there (just change "oppose" to "comment") and place a new opinion (presumably oppose) up above in the survey part along with a brief reason for your opposition to the move. -- PBS ( talk) 20:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, the editor raising the issue at ANI was the same editor avoiding a block. This is a long-term problem editor from South America who has previously been blocked numerous times for trolling such pages. They are quite aware that their behaviour is an issue and so WP:DENY is the best route here. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
GregKaye, there are some editors so disruptive over a period of time that it is senseless to negotiate with them. Kudos for assuming good faith, but this time it's not going to work. Jehochman Talk 15:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The main problem with the usage of words such as "Islamist" is that there is a huge misconception in western world that thinks Islam is one monolithic thing, when in reality Islam has may branches and interpretrations. When you place such a suffix as "-ist" it only perpetuates this misunderstanding. 80.43.207.148 ( talk) 10:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Do I detect a taste of sour grapes? Pdfpdf ( talk) 10:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Discrimination
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Discrimination for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (jive) @ 20:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at WP:MR to which you may be associated with. The thread can be found here. Thanks. Qxukhgiels ( talk) 22:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello Gregkaye. My apologies for the late reply, I was slightly indisposed. Having looked through the points you had previously raised, I will attempt to address them.
Point 1 - "Circus"
Point 2 - me raising issue at your mention of life taking killers (I am not sure if I did raise an issue but I will assume I did)
Point 3 - your comment on ISIL page with stamp: 11:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I hope that cleared some of the issues at hand. Regards Mbcap ( talk) 23:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
No legacypac, you are simply by my impression, the owner of the ISIL page. You close discussions, censor talk page posts by other IP's, you blank other IP's posts (does not matter if they are socks, their comment stays), you have according to me; complete disregard for building an encyclopedia as shown by your revert of my addition of the ISIL portal link and you label others as cyber terrorist, dirty socks and so on. You are here to simply further your agenda and using this encyclopedia as a political advocacy tool. I will not put up with this. You are extremely disrespectful as shown by your attempted bullying on the ISIl talk page regarding the justifications section. You disparage the work of other editors by calling it nonsense. You delete good revertes such as the one of the Abu Bakr Al-baghdadi page because they, by my impression, do not further your own cause in light of your world view. This is not a soapbox or a political think tank. We are here simply to build an encyclopedia. It is just a shame that I do not know my way around here but hopefully someday I will find a way to do away with your bullying, innapropriate manners and strong arming of other editors. I promise you a day will come when every editor will be made felt welcome on the ISIl page or any other related pages. Mbcap ( talk) 17:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Has anyone seen my talk page? I'm sure it was here somewhere. What the hell fuck is going on.
Mbcap the whole presence of this thread is inappropriate as it was started in response to involved content on your talk page.
Legacypac, similarly I have repeatedly asked you to consider the ways in which you join in discussions in threads on my talk page and, in general, I would prefer you not to do it. Mbcap, wtf. I am my own person. I present what I think is right for the presentation of encyclopaedic content in Wikipedia in accordance with its guidelines and in this I am deeply offended that you describe me as someone's "enabler". This, like all other locations in Wikipedia, is not the place for you to air your "impressions". Your actions continue, in your words, to alienate. All you are doing is asserting unsubstantiated vague allusions with no substance, amazing coming from an editor who makes criticisms about empty air. If you think I am an enabler then please read the background to this talk page and the fallacy of your argument will soon become crystal clear. It becomes more clear to me that you present one unsubstantiated criticism and spin after another. Don't come to my talk page saying that you are sorry for past offences while merely continuing your jibes. I stand on my own and will continue to resist your slurs and insinuations. The main person that I have enabled is you. The Barndoor thread had utterly lost its track and It Was Me who gave it a chance to get back on its direction. Legacypac, if there are "articles at WP I find hugely POV and offensive" and you let them alone, then let them alone. If you have points to make about specific contents then make them. I do not want my talk page to become part a battleground. You close discussions with regularity and while, arguably, you are "fully entitled" to do so, it is none-the-less unsettling for editors who see potentially unnecessary closures occurring. If you want to address issues with other editors then please do so on that editor's talk page. Any content henceforth on this threat that is not addressed to me will be deleted. Any attack or unsubstantiated content will be treated similarly.
Greg
Kaye 20:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Your recent editing history at Template:Largest cities of Israel shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Regards, “ WarKosign ” 13:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
add: The following relates to content placed on StanMan87's talk page here
You have provided two possible choices: Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and ISIS (Islamist rebel group). I opted to vote for the former, with the acronym of ISIS replacing ISIL when referring to the group not only in the main body of the article, but any article which refers to the group as ISIL so as to match the new title which would be Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. I don't know if this is confusing for you... The "A re-cap for you:" section was to illustrate to RGloucester that he favors the title which provides the least amount of either 1.) Accuracy or 2.) Commonality/Recognition out of all the possible names for the group, and the acronyms associated with them. As for the group not being considered Islamic, this is debatable. What makes Saudi Arabia so different from the Islamic State? I will say that both you and I have completely different views on that little Pandora's box you just mentioned. I will say no more than that. That comment you are referring to was completely 100% relevant. You should be aware that you are calling the article something the group is not which therefore will mislead users. What I mean by this is the designation Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria/Greater Syria/al-Sham will become irrelevant (as if it has already) if the group continues expanding far beyond those regions which they have started doing ever since late 2014, albeit slowly. Algeria, Libya, Egypt (Sinai), parts of the Afghan-Pakistan border and now apparently in Yemen [1] are places where IS has a presence. So this is a very relevant question which has to be looked at when deciding to refer to the article title as anything else except either Da'ish or Islamic State (IS). Are you just going to pretend that IS doesn't exist outside Iraq and Syria to stop it from being renamed Islamic State? That is irresponsible. Sooner or later, if/when IS becomes more prevalent outside Iraq in Syria not only in the regions I mentioned, but even in places like Xinjiang in China or the Caucasus region, having either Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) will no longer be appropriate for the title of the article, unless a disclaimer has been placed as to why Wikipedia will not rename it which will be considered as adhering to a sharp POV, something an Encyclopedia doesn't possess. But you are going to have to find a way to solve that little problem pretty soon. StanMan87 ( talk) 08:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Gregkaye, would you be able to tell me if it is standard practice to ping editors when you reply to them. Most of the time I do, do it but I have seen a few instances where I have not done so as I am sure you are aware. On a side note thank you for your recent response on the unrecognized states article. The ISIL topic is very interesting and I can see how one could spend all their time here just on that. If myself or any other editors errs by misapplying policy in a non-neutral way then I am hoping my more senior colleagues such as yourself will provide assistance in understanding such issues more clearly. Regards
Note added later; if you would permit me to ask one more question, can youtube be used as a source when writing articles? I am sure that is not allowed but would just like some clarification. Mbcap ( talk) 09:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Heya, I see you put Tel Avivi and Tel Aviveet as the transliterations for תל אביבי and תל אביבית, respectively. I've no problem with the male form, but the female form used implies a longer i-sound (like Arabic ي) than is really there. Tel Avivit would be pronounced with the same sound as Tel Avivi, but with a -t at the end of course (unless you're dealing with Yiddish speakers who'd give a weird -s sound, but no one cares what they think) and would sound exactly like if you were to put the English word 'it' at the end of Tel Aviv and run the two together. That's also the common transliteration for ית-. Just my thoughts on the matter. :) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 19 Shevat 5775 18:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I've changed my name from John Smith the Gamer to Banak Banak ( talk) 01:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I am wondering how to add an article to the Discrimination series. I saw that you have made edits there before and I thought you may be able to help. I have recently improved the Anti-kurdism page and wish to add it to the discrimination series. Is there anywhere you can point me to that explains this? Thanks.
The page should be moved to ISIS. There is strong support for a move to ISIS. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is wrong, but even I support a move to ISIS. I've made a proposal as such. Please comment. RGloucester — ☎ 06:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Re your edit here - I thought we were having an RfC to decide this? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 16:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I created and am inviting you to another move discussion; join in. -- George Ho ( talk) 19:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but in my hatting here, the hat gobbled up your comment which is still relevant to the topic. I don't want to be so presumptious as to move (and thus accidentally misrepresent) your comment, and so I'm letting you know so you can move it somewhere you think it fits best. Cheers! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16 Adar 5775 02:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello Gregkaye, would you be kind enough to suggest a source, possibly a book about the history of Israel and Palestine. And secondly what is the difference between the SoP and the Palestinian territories? Is this question relevant to the RM being discussed on the SoP page? Regards Mbcap ( talk) 17:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I was sort of compelled into developing an interest in the Israel/Palestine issue and it is a long story which I am sure is not that interesting. Too often on the University campus you would meet members of the Palestinian society and the Jewish Society, handing out leaflets and criticising each other. I know that Israel and Jewish are similar but different identities. It just happens that at the University I attend, the Jewish Society is Pro-Israel. All this while their stalls are next to each other. I would go to the Palestinian stall and hear them speak against the Israeli's and then I would go the Jewish society stall and hear them criticise the Palestinian's. Have you ever been in the middle of an argument between two of your friends, and not known what to do or who to side with or not? That is what it was like. Add to this, the incident where the administrative building including the Chancellor's office became the scene of a sit in against the University's selling of Israeli products. Furthermore, there is the sheer inescapable coverage of the conflict on the news. I guess what I am trying to say is that I was simply unable to escape the issue. When I attempted to research the area, I found that on the issue is covered in such a way as to suggest an inherent existence of a dichotomy between two people. This is where I have been stuck as I do not know what to read to gain a greater understanding of the issue. On a professional level, I have an interest in Medicine and Israel is a physicians dream destination to learn new techniques in the field and to also learn how to push new frontiers in medical research, something which Israel is proficient at. My professional interests also extend towards the neurocognitive basis of expertise. Israel is home to greatest number of patents registered per capita and the country is a sight to behold as it is literally flooded with experts in a wide variety of fields. As to Palestine, I have many colleagues who travel there to provide medical aid and their verbal accounts are quite sad to hear which by the include stories of checkpoints and processing at the Airport, just like you have previously mentioned. These are some of the things that have drawn me to area but it is all too confusing. I refuse to believe that one side is solely responsible for all of this, there is probably enough blame to go around to everyone and then some. Please do take a lot of the opinions in this post with a pinch of salt because it is the opinion of someone ignorant of the background information. Mbcap ( talk) 20:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Greg
this edit made a mess of the formatting of the section, it should have gone in the survey subsection (although it also contains some discussion).
Would you like to fix it? Alternatively I can, either by moving your support to the relevant subsection or by just removing the now inappropriate subsection headings completely. Andrewa ( talk) 06:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Please revert Hel (deity) back to Hel (being). There is a long series of talk page discussions about this on the talk page. Most importantly, nowhere is Hel listed as a deity. :bloodofox: ( talk) 16:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Greek mythology and Ancient Greek religion are not the same thing. Please stop changing one to the other. Paul August ☎ 16:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Paul August I raised the issue to you here with "an illustration of the extent that the interpretation as mythology is being pushed". I would appreciate any views on this and of any ideas for potential changes.
I also appreciate your mention above of Menoetius (Greek mythology) and I notice that this content is not placed within Category:Greek gods. Can I get you opinion on the specific contents of this category and that of Category:Greek goddesses - are there any characters in these categories who's titles contain parenthesis but which you would not classify as deities and fitting the description god or goddess? Thanks. Greg Kaye 18:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I've asked the editor why but seems to have been an undiscussed article blanking involved. In ictu oculi ( talk) 15:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Yay, another move request! Okay, so obviously I'm sitting this one out, but I really, really think that the two moves should've been done as a single multi-move. (I'm concerned about half the editors on one RM missing the discussion on another, and leading to two inconsistent titles, among other problems.) Do you agree? If so, would you mind please closing one of the two moves and making the other one a multi-move? I would have done it myself, but, lol, obviously I would not put myself in that situation again! Red Slash 21:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello Gregkaye, just to let you know, whenever I address you via ping form, the name comes out as Greg when I press save edit. My apologies if you prefer being addressed with your full name. I just have no clue how to get the full username in. Mbcap ( talk) 16:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I find the telegraphic style that you have used at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation very hard to interpret. It would help me, and doubtless DexDor, if you could provide a little more detail and background regarding your thoughts. Also, apparently you put some store by root word analysis of text. Could you recommend an informatics article on the technique and its value? -- Bejnar ( talk) 22:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
That was insulting.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 06:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
You lack tact. You've made a grave error in attempting mass RMs. Moves should be done on a case by case basis. You've completely destroyed any chance for any of these articles to be moved. RGloucester — ☎ 23:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Please explain what value you see in the content with the questionable title "Naturalness"". Please also respond to comment at: Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Propose presenting content before style in WP:CRITERIA. Read it through. Policies presently present a variety of inconsistencies and absurdities or weirdness as you might interpret it. Greg Kaye 05:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Greg! Good to see you so active in ISIS still. Haven't been editing in Wikipedia so much lately and will most likely not return to the fray in ISIS. Fond memories of our early collaboration remain and here's hoping we can put our differences behind us. ~ P-123 ( talk) 21:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your response to my apology on the ANI page.
Since posting that response, I decided to begin working on minor copyedits on articles I'm interested in reading. However, a couple of other users are watching me and won't seem to accept any change I make. In particular I made a very minor, trivial edit to Iraq, promoting another user to post repeated 'warnings' that I'll be blocked without warning for posting 'unverifiable' content. (The edit added an undisputed fact.) I removed those 'warnings' from my talk page, as I found them quite frustrating.
Since you seem to be open to giving people the chance to learn how to navigate the site, I'd greatly appreciate your input if you could spare the time to look into the issue. ... Thanks in advance for your consideration. JoeM ( talk) 06:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
List of Islamist terrorist attacks is now a thing, and Islamist terrorism may soon follow. I know that this is a very big deal to you; congratulations. I felt the same when Kosovo finally became an article about the country; it is awesome to feel that your efforts have made a difference in shaping how people worldwide view the world. I wish you the very best in your continued efforts here on Wikipedia. (See, I told you I was never against your move.) Red Slash 19:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Before launching a move request on this subject, I would suggest that you have a look at the previous requests to see where they fell short, and to the extensive study of the topic that I put together last year at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/Move rationale. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I am pretty clearly a fanatic", there is no excuse. I have opened things up for text development on the Clinton page but I do not want to work with you. Greg Kaye 13:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey Greg,
Good work with the HRC RM proposal. Not sure how familiar you are with the last discussion on this topic. You may want to glance at it. This is definitely one of the more controversial topics I've come across on WP. You/we may want to step into another another RM with our eyes open.
Expect resistance. NickCT ( talk) 14:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
NickCT Can you help me, what is the motivation for favouring the Rodham name? Greg Kaye 15:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
BD2412, Calidum and NickCT the three of you have been "credited" in DD2K's 17:35, 26 April 2015 post as being the main editors from the last move request. Obviously you have no obligation to comment but I'm curious about motivation. For me, sure, I want the project to have common names represented and for Wikipedia not to have favourites but, to be honest, a lot of my contribution has been down to people aggressively, IMO, talking about wasting time or whatever and me thinking that I felt it fair to prove that we weren't wasting their time and a lot of it was a response to a variety of forms of flaming. Wikipedia can be an odd place sometimes. Greg Kaye 17:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
more policy based argument" seems utterly clear. I even tried to change policy to see if it could fit and was surprised by the hostile reaction. I haven't yet seen the MR. But I think that this must have also left something to be desired. Greg Kaye 01:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Please consider adding edit summaries to give other editors some inkling regarding the nature and purpose of your changes to Wikipedia pages. Butwhatdoiknow ( talk) 11:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Category:Women who notably have used a name that references surnames from both sides of their marriage/relationship, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Nymf ( talk) 14:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Have only just seen your comment following my diatribe re WP, which I appreciate. Am touched as ever by your moral support, Greg. Best, P-123 ( talk) 20:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
... Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence,... should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) ...". Please also refer to the previous AN/I for my opinion of the presentation of this type of content. Greg Kaye 08:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 20:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
How about you volunteer to stop your crusade, and instead take it to the MOS discussions and abide by consensus? The alternative is likely to be an enforced restriction. Guy ( Help!) 22:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.
Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT ( talk) 18:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
While I agree with you in some WP:RM and WP:AT discussions and disagree with you in others (i.e., I don't lump you into the same "does not understand Wikipedia titling at all, and is trying to warp it into something radically different" camp as B2C), I have to concur with DickLyon and RGloucester (who otherwise hardly ever seem to agree on anything) that you're sorely confusing the naturalness criterion of AT policy with natural disambiguation simply because they use the same word. There is no connection between them. They're separate and distinct, and generally don't interact at all.* Your two somewhat recent proposals at WT:AT have made not a whole lot of sense because of this confusion, and it also explains quite a number of your less supportable RMs. Please just re-read them carefully, and internalize the distinction. Think of the naturalness criterion policy as the "intuitiveness of the base title" criterion. This is a determination that is made before, and usually not affected by any need for, or form of, disambiguation. Think of the natural disambiguation policy as the "flows naturally as an English-language phrase" disambiguation pattern, a consideration that applies, necessarily, after a "natural" (intuitive) base title has been chosen, since it is a matter of how, linguistically, the base title and the disambiguator relate. If you get this right, an enormous amount of time and energy spent on kind of "WTF?"-ish article title policy and requested move debates will just never need to happen again. We all have way more productive things to spend our time here doing. :-) [*There are sometimes cases where we have two alternative titles that seem about equal under the criteria, but one needs disambiguation and the other doesn't; in those cases we more often go with the non-disambiguated one. But these are outlying cases, and still do not in any way blur the distinction between the two "natural" provisions in WP:AT.] — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
SMcCandlish the related WP:PG wording is:
To my mind this is nonsensical as it is presented in a way that, at the very least, puts it totally at odds with parenthetical disambiguation. Take the example of "
!!! (album)" as first on the list. I do not think that editors would typically take the entirety of this title as a link and this is demonstrated on the
!!! page in the use of the link "''[[!!! (album)|!!!]]''
". Similarly I do not think that editors would typically type a term in the form of "foobar (baz)" into a search engine. In effect, according to the argument that I have presented,
WP:NATURALNESS is written in a way in which it has little practical difference from
WP:NATURAL. I believe that this is one of the reasons that, in my perception, many Wikipedia editors take a form of
WP:NATURALdisambiguation, to be a policy preference. The only preference that we should have is to use the most appropriate titling that can be applied to any particular subject to meet WP:GOALS.
Greg
Kaye 03:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Everyone seems to get this". Maybe so within the context of WT:AT but I would love to see any evidence of the quantity of Wikipedia editors, say, after an initial reading of WP:AT, who understand a difference between Naturalness and NATURAL. Your input here has been really helpful and from what you say maybe the PG might be worded as something like:
An article title is the large heading displayed above the article's content. The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." There is no distinction made to "base title". The only talk is of "title". The text also, I think over prescriptively, presents "
For example, it would be inappropriate to title an article "Queen (rock band)", as Queen (band) is precise enough to distinguish the rock band from other uses of the term "Queen"." Again here " Queen (band)" is accurately described as being the title and yet, following Special:WhatLinksHere/Queen (band) and looking up August 19#Events we rapidly find the text "
*[[1951]] – [[John Deacon]], English bass player and songwriter ([[Queen (band)|Queen]])".
However, please re read what I said– I have, and doing so does not change my response. I'm reading your new reply carefully.
within the context of WT:AT– The context of WT:AT is Wikipedia article title policy, which is, obviously, also the context of WP:AT itself. It, in turn, is the naming policy that covers every single article here. By extension, this is also the context of all RM (and MR) discussions. So what other context are you talking about, exactly? You later said
within a conte[x]t on article titles, but that is the same context as that of WP:AT and WT:AT and WP:RM. Maybe you're trying to say you think that WT:AT regulars understand it and no one else does, but that clearly isn't true. Which brings us to ...
any evidence of the quantity of Wikipedia editors, say, after an initial reading of WP:AT, who understand a difference between Naturalness and NATURAL– The evidence is that both of the distinct policies are being consistently followed in actual practice, largely without incident. This is prima facie proof. Further evidence is that RM discussions, with few exceptions other than those involving you, do not confuse the two concepts with any frequency. If they did, we would have reworded them years ago. I'm still in favor of some rewording just to pre-empt any further such confusions, rare though they may be.
I do not think, within a conte[x]t on article titles, that using a word like title in ambiguous ways sets a very firm foundation– Then just fix it, or propose that it be fixed. I think I'll do this myself, just to be done with this.
We are not writing ... where various things are taken as matters of interpretation.Of course we are, and of course they are. You like to cite WP:PG a lot; read it again: "Use common sense when interpreting and applying policies and guidelines". How can we be interpreting P & G if they're not subject to interpretation? LOL. "Interpretation of policy" is a stock Wikipedia talk phrase. [13] Virtually everything about WP policy and guidelines is subject to interpretation, by design.
The only preference that we should have is to use the most appropriate titling that can be applied to any particular subject to meet WP:GOALS.– This is too vague to act on, and sounds like a proposal to delete most of WP:AT. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
SMcCandlish ☺ Thank you again. On your points.
2. Context of WT:AT - all I was saying was that people that edit there may on average have more understanding of titling policies than other editors.
3. Editors have generated/or relocated a number of John Smith, for example, articles to titles using middle names or initials that just weren't used in life. One editor even expressed that the adoption of an unused middle name was proposed so as to avoid the need for disambiguation. These are editors that have read WP:AT and still gained very erroneous understandings.
4. I was presenting WP:PG really as a representation of all contents starting "Wikipedia:..." which constitute Policy and Guidelines. Where does policy stop and guideline begin? Different editors may have different opinions. I had started saying WP:PG to cover both references.
9. You say: "It is quite literally logically impossible for WP:NATURALNESS to include any parenthetical disambiguator,
" so why is the wording written to state, "The title is one that ...
"? Why? The title, as is expressly presented from the opening text of the project page says that the title is the whole thing. You accuse me of
WP:POINTy behaviour. Everything that I have done is has been done in good faith so as to build as best that I have considered it possible, solid content in the encyclopedia.
Greg Kaye 18:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
(exclusive of any added [[#Disambiguation|parenthetical disambiguation]])" to the text so that it now reads:
An article title is the large heading displayed above the article's content. The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles."
Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects." and I am very glad of the clarification of the definition of "title" previously used.
Hello Greg, hope you are well. I was wondering if you would be able to help me out regarding a matter that has proved difficult to solve. Is there a way to get statistics in regards to page views relating to a category of article. For example, if I wanted to see how many page views the entire Gastroenterology articles have had as a collective, would that be possible. It has its own wikiproject.
Secondly and on a different matter entirely, I see what you mean about the BBC documentary subtitling the translation wrongly. I was surprised to see that they did not mention the name used by the person. When you mentioned it I thought they used Islamic State or IS as parenthetical qualification of Daesh or whatever it is that the different people use but they have skipped it all together. It is very strange.
Thirdly and I promise it will be the last question; how does consensus work exactly in regards to our discussions on the ISIL talk page? I ask this in reference to the discussion you started on Ideology. I remember we agreed to include Salafism, Jihadi Salafism and Wahhabism. Since that discussion that ideology infobox has changed numerous times. What is the point of having such a long discussion, reaching consensus and then only to have different content on the page. Maybe I am missing something obvious and I was hoping you could explain how this works exactly. Regards. Mbcap ( talk) 07:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello. You may be interested to oppose or comment on the recent move request at Talk:Pashtuns, because "Pashtuns" is clearly the concise and common plural demonym, therefore the best option for the article title. Regards, Khestwol ( talk) 11:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Talk:Islamic_economic_jurisprudence#Requested_move_19_April_2015 -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 18:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm asking editors (on both sides of the question) who have made responses to individual !votes in the survey section to move those discussions to subsections in the discussion section. That will keep things tidy. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for sticking up for me at the ANI discussion. Sadly, I guess now we know an editor may falsify facts, edit war to keep this from being revealed, insult others, and falsely accuse an opponent of having a "topic ban" and get off with no consequence at all. Such is the nature of the discussion as a whole. I know how you feel -- I'm not feeling like staying neutral too much longer either. Blessings!! Pandeist ( talk) 18:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello GregKaye! This is just to notify you that I have modified my requested move at Talk:Masjid al-Haram and limited it to one title ("Al-Masjid al-Haram"). So again vote! maybe? Khestwol ( talk) 21:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I had to ask you because you are active on these topics. Please keep an eye on ISIL, especially its infobox's ideology section (recent examples of disruptive edit-warring by a user just coming back from a 1 week topic-ban: [14], [15], [16]). Khestwol ( talk) 21:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Greg. Just wanted to mention what an interesting and epic discussion you started at the Hillary renaming page. It shall be remembered as long as Wikipedia is spoken about, in the lore of the wooded ones, the tales of those who dwell under bridges, and in the halls of grey academia for centuries to come (or for at least a couple of weeks). Nice work, and I'm interested now how much more will be added. My prediction about a 'Stephen King size' page may have been accurate! Cheers, salutations, and one of those spinning-star templates if I knew how to give one. Randy Kryn 9:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I think we have a long way to go not just in quantity but also, IMO, in relevance to the plot. As much for my ref as anything its also worth noting that the page falls short of the arguably more important issue of:
In this context I'll wait to see what happens at:
I somehow doubt that she will move mohammed let alone usurp the king .
Thanks for your kindness.
Greg Kaye 10:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Would you like to help find another optimal title at talk:Balochs? Thanks, Khestwol ( talk) 17:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Greg, I noticed that you have edited one of BD2412's barnstars to include some criticism. [17] It seems that you disagree about BD2412's response to someone else's question about alternatives to the word "disambiguation". BD2412 answered that disambiguation pages have been called that since at least 2002, and he linked to evidence of that. Apparently, you would have instead referred the questioner to this April 2015 discussion. But wasn't that April discussion about alternative ways of accomplishing disambiguation, rather than about alternatives to the word "disambiguation"? In other words, in the April 2015 discussion, it doesn't seem like you were suggesting to replace that word "disambiguation" with the word "navigation" in Wikipedia article titles. In my opinion, the person who later asked BD2412 about alternatives to the word "disambiguation" was not asking about anything more than whether that word should be replaced by another word in all Wikipedia titles. So the answer BD2412 gave seems reasonable to me, and not tendentious at all. But if you really think it was tendentious, and you really think BD2412 does not deserve the barnstar that you previously gave him, I think it would be better to just leave him a note saying that you withdraw the barnstar, rather than trying to change the barnstar from an award into something else. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages are navigation pages
Example text
In contrast a search on:
article navigation -Wikipedia
gets "About 555,000,000 results"
article disambiguation -Wikipedia
only gets "About 490,000 results
The ratio is >1000:1
As a result of, I think, a misguided focus on disambiguation I think that Wikipedia regularly slips into WP:BUREAUCRACY often neglecting the role of a WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA to provide valuable WP:DESCRIPTION.
The result, IMO, is that editors can often favour emphasis on dissection rather than on presentation of subject descriptions.
For reference please refer to Web navigation and any relevant content at Disambiguation (disambiguation).
In the current state of the " WP:Disambiguation" page there are only 17 instances of content containing "descri" and I think that, to an extent, we can miss the point. I suggest a refocus of this content and would encourage editors to put some thought into this."
Sounds like fanaticism" from the other editor yet he still persisted in what seemed to me to be deliberate sabotage of the thread.
Okay, I have just investigated, and I believe you may be taking that fanaticism thing somewhat out of context. The editor who commented about fanaticism also said this: "Of course, bd2412, you are not a fanatic. You are a prolificly-editing disambiguation expert who always says sensible things. But 'our disambiguation pages be as concisely written as possible' is something to choke on, it is something that a fanatic may pick up out of context and run mad with." Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Precision is not the issue here and I think that "clarification" deserves a mention."
This sounds like something that has less to do with the content of disambiguation pages than with the desire of some editors to move titles like George Washington to George Washington (planter, American Revolutionary War general, and President of the United States born February 22, 1732) or something like that. ..."
We could just as absurdly move Steve Henson (politician) to Steve Henson (Democratic member of the Georgia Senate born March 30, 1959 in Indianapolis, Indiana).".
I think that "clarification" deserves a mention."
This kind of tactic of sending arguments, imo, overboard and into the absurd is not something I can respect whoever the arguments are addressed to." Please can we leave it at that? I mistakenly gave respect. I rectified the situation. Greg Kaye 17:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
... You are a prolificly-editing disambiguation expert ..." also presented the comparably ridiculous and I think scaremongering example, in the very same edit, of:
I think that "clarification" deserves a mention"? Greg Kaye 13:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that "clarification" deserves a mention". If it wasn't "deliberate sabotage", what was it? Greg Kaye 17:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Following the closure of a recent RfC you participated in, I have started an RfC on the separate but related issue of commas after Jr. and Sr.. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr. and feel free to comment there. Thanks! — sroc 💬 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I wish you had started a discussion before launching that particular RM with a title very few will support. I really think what we need there is a multiple choice survey made up of a list of titles, including the current one, so that participants can rank them all against each other. I tried to that a year or so ago [18], but it was too soon after another RM, and was immediately closed. Now this RM will just prevent anyone from starting another RM. And now it's probably too late to withdraw. To get to a stable title that has consensus support, we need a variant of what I created. Next time... -- В²C ☎ 17:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
FYI, I've reorganized List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton a bit. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Greg, do you have any views on the proposed merger of Other Black? I ask because not many editors have contributed to the discussion, and I saw that you moved Other White earlier today. Cordless Larry ( talk) 15:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Antisemitism. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr ( talk) 16:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Grekaye, I gave a rather short answer on the related board regarding experts and wanted to clarify what I meant. The issue of interpreting DSM and ICD requires some training in order to be able to do it competently. I did a pilot systematic review a few years ago on long term efficacy of ADHD medication. I had to consult with a psychiatrist when it came to interpreting DSM-VI and ICD-10 so I know it can be tricky. This stuff is way over my head so I am afraid I will not be able to contribute much. It seems you have raised the issue on a more appropriate board and hopefully it will provide some direction for the article. Good luck. Mbcap ( talk) 20:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!
Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!
If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.
Thanks, and happy editing!
Note about this RfC where you !voted. I tweaked the statement to make it more clear that it is about eating GM food and health. I'm notifying each person who !voted, in case that matters to you. Sorry for the trouble. Jytdog ( talk) 21:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
GregKaye:
I noticed that the ANI that I opened was closed with the sentence: "Non admin closure." Do non-admins have the authority to close those reports? Who is in charge around here? Most web sites have clear lines of authority, but this place seems like anarchy where anyone with an agenda and the time to pursue it can override common sense.
I am annoyed by the reason for the closure. How can "refusing to provide a good-faith explanation for [a] reversion" be described as a "content dispute"? Other people, not I, raised the content issues. I did not even use the terms "GMO" or "GM food" in my report (except in quoting the source). It was Jytdog that started the ad hominem attacks. Does Wikipedia ever enforce its WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and WP:CIVIL policies? After this experience of hours of wasted time trying to negotiate with someone who refuses to consider any viewpoint but his own and being the victim of a campaign of character assassination, I doubt I will ever spend any time in the future improving Wikipedia in my areas of expertise. Why tolerate the abuse and wasted time for no compensation? At least I no longer feel guilty about always taking from Wikipedia without ever giving back.
Incidentally, while I am flattered that you think I have a "high level of wiki knowhow," please note that other users in the WHO citation thread first raised the WP:SYNTH and WP:RS/AC issues. As to talk page quoting, that is explained in the instructions for submitting an ANI issue. GrayDuck156 ( talk) 00:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Who is in charge around here?" Lol, if I had any previous doubts, this proves to me that you are newish to the wiki. (I am taken my previous doubts as a compliment regarding competence). Everyone and no-one is my interpretation and, despite what WP:NOT says, I think that (in a very positive sense) Wikipedia is an experiment (actually a fairly effective practice) in Anarchy. This, in itself, is not a criticism as leaderless consensus based leadership can work.
This is a content dispute that belongs on the article talk page metastasizing into a pointless all-out brawl". I certainly agree that there was a content dispute but also agreed with you that WP:DISRUPTSIGNS
that (Jytdog has) violated: "A disruptive editor is an editor who...repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits..."" I find the interpretation "brawl" to be quite demeaning. To my mind, if anything editors have simply wanted to ensure the application of clear and direct talk page conversation and I do not see that this has been supported in ANI.
right great wrongs" but no one in any way presented a defence for Jytdog's disruptive behaviour.
Does Wikipedia ever enforce its WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and WP:CIVIL policies?" Regularly and action taken is decided on a case by case basis. Often when an editor has engaged in disruptive behaviour there will at least be comment on this behaviour in the close. However, in my view, ANI often has nothing to do with incident resolution but adopts a remit that is more focussed on application of sanctions. I believe that this lack of attention on reconciliation and behaviour rectification is a major cause of falling editor numbers in Wikipedia.
I am unblocked and more than ready to participate in any activity that you initiate that will provide the right of reply for future editors who may find themselves in the exact situation that I found myself in during my two ANIs. Also, I insist that you ping me if you find a similar situation occurring on ANI where an editor has not had a chance to reply or is blocked and can't reply and/or is subjected to unnecessary name-calling or other uncivil behavior. Best Regards, Bfpage | leave a message 13:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
about this. Bfpage | leave a message 21:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The name change discussion was getting to be quite confusing as to who supported what, so I revamped the format and I'm asking all editors who already voted to return and recast their votes under the new format. [19] Thanks, BMK ( talk) 12:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much, that was really sweet of you. :D Big hug from Spain to you! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 19:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Greg, I wanted to make sure we had one point clear before I respond at AN/I (if I even do). Can you tell me where you were going with WP:censor there? StevenJ81 ( talk) 20:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Don't Stop Believin'!! Pandeist ( talk) 05:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC) |
Whenever anybody tries to change things, there will be those who scoff. "Oh, it's all been tried before; oh it'll never work." But what have they done? What change have they sought? So you keep right on keep in' on. Sometimes to try is victory in itself. And sometimes, victory is. Blessings!! Pandeist ( talk) 05:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Oriya_language#Requested_move_17_June_2015. Thanks. Cpt.a.haddock ( talk) 15:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Do not spread lies. RGloucester — ☎ 15:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
If you believe the deletion of content referring to controversy over United Synagogue's political positions is unwarranted, you should raise those concerns on the talk page of the article, and not on the talk page of a blocked user. At Talk:United_Synagogue#Controversy, I invited other editors to discuss the deletion. You are still welcome to comment there. Regards, -- Ravpapa ( talk) 12:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Dear User,
As you are one of the contributors to Tunisian Arabic. You are kindly asked to review the part about Domains of Use and adjust it directly or through comments in the talk page of Tunisian Arabic.
Yours Sincerely,
-- Csisc ( talk) 13:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello Greg. Your recent edit [20] is most welcome. You never need to say please twice or indeed once. You are my colleague and I will always attempt to give an answer to points that you raise. I have decided to take the weekend off to reflect on some issues. Hopefully tomorrow I will comment. Happy editing. Mbcap ( talk) 10:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
jumping from one argument to another when it suits". You order me to answer you recent question and, even though my question was first asked in my 05:07, 18 July 2015 talk page edit, you do not give an answer. Seriously, who has the own issues here? You now criticise that I quoted both times in which I asked "
Please". I asked a simple question.
Serial POV pusher" etc., etc., etc., without substantiation. If you can't substantiate please consider striking. Take a look at WP:ASPERSIONS. I do not think that this is what Wikipedia editing is meant to be about. Greg Kaye 12:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia in the Persian language (another language widely spoken among Arabic communities)"? If you did you would have also seen the reply dated 17:08, 18 July 2015 in which you were also pinged and in which I said: "
Mbcap Fair enough yet the article Arabs indicates the presence of 1,600,000 Arabs living in Iran indicating about a fiftieth of the population. Arabs are a significant minority in just this one Persian speaking country and I presume that some of them speak Persian." As you realize Iran is a predominantly Islamic country which is really the important issue in regard to the thread in question. If this is your evidence of me being a POV pusher then your evidence is incredibly poor and, if you had seen my response, disingenuous. Did you see my response? Greg Kaye 20:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes I read your comment and you simply can not arrive at the said conclusion of, "widely spoken among Arabic communities", from the fact that 1.6 million Arabs live in Iran. My evidence for you being a POV pusher is from the way you pushed the label extremist and the way you hinder any effort to attain a policy congruent article title. Mbcap ( talk) 22:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough ...". You realize that the discussion here is on on Islamic State and Islam. If anything my mention of Arabs as an ethnicity was an irrelevance. Since your 08:57, 20 July 2015 edit here and since your re logging on to edit Wikipedia without responding to anything I have said (in my 20:17, 22 July 2015 edit on the article talk page), "
Mbcap I guess that the main issue that I see here for me is Persian speaking countries like Iran are predominantly Islamic. On this basis I think that people from language groups such as Persian can be referenced to a give good indication of the reaction to the group from communities that have high rate of connection and understanding of Islam." This was the stronger point that I should have made on the first occasion. Again I responded "
Fair enough" when you made your correction in regard to ethnicity (which came, as it did, in a discussion more closely related to religion.
This is not an invitation sprawl this discussion and if you want to cite something do it, as you should have done, adjacent to the accusations." What you certainly should not do is make something out of nothing in regard to a mistaken reference to ethnicity which, when corrected, the other party had openly responded "
Fair enough". What is not fair is that you quote my original statement out of context of my honest response. You are making something out of nothing.
On seven occasions at talk:ISIL you have accused me of or otherwise insinuated a practice of conflation and, on overlapping occasions, of the practice of WP:SOAPBOX. ... You order me to answer you recent question and, even though my question was first asked in my 05:07, 18 July 2015 talk page edit, you do not give an answer," and, to this, you responded "
You can expect from me that I will think about what you have said and I will reply in due course." What I do not think is any where near "fair enough" in your actions is that you make uncited accusation, bark orders in relation to answering your belated question, then (in response to my mentioned 11:16 edit) you say "
You can expect from me that I will think about what you have said and I will reply in due course" and yet, after four occasions of my asking my question in relation to your repeated accusation, you still do not answer. Instead all you do is engage in this "
catastrophic waste of ... time" sideshow on ethnicity. Greg Kaye 01:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
FYI, it's " toe the line", not "tow the line" (or in the relevant case, not "line-towing"). Regards! VQuakr ( talk) 08:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I recently started a move request. -- George Ho ( talk) 05:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. As someone who has shown some interest in articles about British immigration policies, I wondered if you might like to comment on the FAC discussion for Gateway Protection Programme? A previous discussion was archived due to a lack of participation, and I am keen to avoid the same happening again. Any thoughts you have on the article would be much appreciated. Cordless Larry ( talk) 11:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
...not to go WP:3RR on WP:AT -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 05:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed you are almost single-handedly trying to keep the discussion on track. Keep up the good work! I hope it bears fruit ... ~ P-123 ( talk) 16:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
non template related signature: Greg Kaye 07:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
this is related to a proposal at: Template talk:You've got mail#RfC: Proposal that the template contain an auto signature, time reference, automatic note placed in edit summary or similar.
Wikipedia needs transparency Greg Kaye 17:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Technophant ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see WP:NAVBOX. It is not a good idea to add this template to every Green politician in the world. St Anselm ( talk) 18:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I thought that it might be interesting for you to see this? Mhhossein ( talk) 10:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, Greg, had to put the record straight. :) I don't take exception to what you said about me, though. ~ P-123 ( talk) 19:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
At
User talk:Worldedixor#Taking stock I presented "My conjecture that this "RfC/U" was not so much written as a request for comment but as a non-neutral statement of condemnation coupled with request for agreement
" and, as best I could, presented a "clarification of actual wrong doing by Worldedixor and references to the overstatement of various cases
". Consider the way that it was written.
Worldedixor's treatment subsequently (of this allegedly non-neutral RfC that was primarily compiled by Technophant) included the content at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Worldedixor#Questions to Certifying users from Worldedixor within which Technophant repeatedly did not address questions raised.
Now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Response to Technophant's Request for closure another editor adds:
"By failing to respond to other editors' comments about you right now, in this very AN, including mine above, you demonstrate that
User:GregKaye is right when he says that you repeatedly refuse to answer direct questions and deal with problems brought to your attention. You haven't even responded to comments above or even tried to defend yourself. Serious charges against you have been made above, with diffs and quotes, but you show no evidence that you have even read them.
"
In this context how is it to his credit that "he is putting up a fight
"?
Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks clearly presents approaches that may effectively be taken in situations like this.
I certainly agree that you were subject to harsh treatment that seemed to me to be devoid of any empathy following AN/I and, despite my also being banned, I remember being the only editor to raise my voice at this.
Since then I have also unsuccessfully raised objection regarding actions at admin noticeboards that do not let accused parties respond including at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive272#Kangaroo court.
The problem as has been interpreted regarding Technophant however is that he is not taking opportunity to respond. What aspects of editors' treatment of Technophant do you think is harsh?
Greg Kaye 07:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I don't really mind these hatnotes, but the small print "navigation page" is likely going to cause some consternation because that's not what the pages are called (they are disambiguation pages), and this seems to be a non-standard way to present such pages anyway. I'd recommend dropping the small print. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Its either saying:
or saying:
At my reading the first one makes more clear sense while the last one most directly says something along the lines of "go and speak to John Smith about other people called John Smith". Greg Kaye 20:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Normally, it's For other people named John Smith, see John Smith. Keep it simple. There's likely a template for this as well. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Here you go:
This uses {{ other people}}. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Since you have participated in numerous such discussions, the above topic may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Since you are contributing to the article and you seem to be an impartial editor, I'd like to know your opinion about this? Thanks-- Shazaami ( talk) 04:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Since you have been a major participant in disambiguation topics, the above discussion, which deals with redirects flowing to dab pages, may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I see you're adding non-standard hatnotes to a lot of articles. While I applaud your thoroughness, you really need to get consensus on this format. (I undid one, William Ainsworth (politician), because we generally don't need hatnotes on pages that are already disambiguated, per WP:NAMB.) We have the templates for a reason, because they are the agreed-upon wording. By all means make the case for a change, but the discussion needs to be had.
If you have already got consensus for this, please ignore the above and point me in the right direction. :) Frickeg ( talk) 13:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I went to your userpage after your edit on Boys Don't Cry (film) and I just wanted to say that I love your userboxes and the quotes on your talk page! It's nice to see such a great ally. :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214) talk to me! see my work 16:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Really, did you now just go WP:4RR at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation? The guidance on how to fight a close you don't agree with is at Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures as I already pointed out. You know I'm right with the close, you "failed to convince anyone" in two months and a half time, so its time for this to end. You had ample time and opportunity to argue your insights. It didn't work out, and by now enough time and effort has gone into it. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 04:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Greg. As somewhat of an expert on ethnic group article naming, I wondered if you have a view on the appropriate title of the Bulgarian Turks article? It's being discussed [Talk:Bulgarian_Turks#Article_title_and_regions_with_significant_populations|here]]. Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I may have mentioned once before, my admiration for your fastidiousness when facing buffeting winds of opposing opinions. Take heart that your good work is appreciated, my brother!! Pandeist ( talk) 18:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Greg. Has there been any discussion about this that I can read? Whilst a useful page, I'm not convinced that's the right place for it (c.f. other nation's politicians, i.e. Barack Obama, where it appears in the more usual Ex Links) and, if it is, they certainly need to be formatted in a better manner than raw urls. Cheers, Bromley86 ( talk) 05:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.
Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 02:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Does Illegal immigration in Japan need to its title to be changed. Dwanyewest ( talk) 22:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Have a good Guido Fawkes night! You must be busy. ~ P-123 ( talk) 10:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing— Dry lightning —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Pierre cb ( talk) 05:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Pierre cb ( talk) 05:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Greg, I noticed closing up Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_24#European_Parliament_constituencies that you never tagged a single category with the listing. That is a CFD requirement as it also notifies the WikiProject about it. It seems like there was some consensus supporting your proposal but the discussion was too unclear from the start. May I suggest that you work out the proposal first, including the naming convention, at somewhere like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom before bringing it up at CFD again? CFD isn't watched by a lot and really won't be watched by anyone if you don't tag the categories so somewhere where people at least understand the system may help. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
(
Charles R. Knight, 1922)
|
GregKaye, I wish you and those dear to you golden days of love and joy in a Happy New Year 2016! Best regards, Me-123567-Me ( talk) 23:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC) Pass on! Send this greeting by adding
{{
subst:
User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages. |
(Unknown artist,
Norway, 1916)
|
Category:Groups not accepted as states claimed to be Islamic states, which you created, has been nominated for upmerging. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
So that's where you've been! Good for you. He's one to watch, isn't he? ~ P-123 ( talk) 02:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Greg. I was going to close this RFC. But I have a question, are you going to add a source to the statement? There doesnt seem to be one on the page where the replacement was done. The reason I ask is the change makes a claim (Prejudice remains) that I cant seem to find in the body, or really any mention of prejudice to show it is sourced. I am just going to box up the RFC because it looks like a WP:SNOW and the change has been made, I would rather not add a citation needed tag to the lede. Thanks AlbinoFerret 05:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, it's Discuss-Dubious and I need help or feedback about fixing Islamic view of the Christian Bible. I started by respelling a word and adding an online version of a published book by blue-linked apologist John Wijngaards making a claim that we allow in our tahrif article. I thought it would be good to add other links, but later realized it was a bad idea because they weren't by blue-linked individuals. [21] I then tried to rewrite the lead in a more "external", third-party tone because I felt it was too first-party. [22] I want to use this in the article, but I'm worried I will slant the article again.
Will you take a look at it? I see that you work in the topic area sometimes. Discuss-Dubious ( t/ c) 05:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of " On a Night Like This", " Do It like a Dude", &c., questions in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 15:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Category:Designated terrorist organizations associated with Islam, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. AusLondonder ( talk) 22:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
As a past contributor, you are invited to participate in the third annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs through the month of June. The purpose of the campaign is to create and improve content related to LGBT culture and history. How can you help?
Looking for topics? The Tasks page, which you are welcome to update, offers some ideas and wanted articles.
This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. The group's mission is to develop LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. Visit the affiliate's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's talk page.
Thanks, and happy editing! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I've been working on standardizing hatnotes, and I noticed a series of pages with manual hatnotes that you inserted in edits like this one. My standardization edits tend to look like this. In future, if adding hatnotes, please use the standard templates like {{ other people}}. If you absolutely need custom phrasing, please use {{ hatnote}}. In particular, the manual hatnotes are bad semantically and cause problems with Hovercards and other tools that pull from article leads. Thanks, {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 16:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Good evening. You are invited to participate in the move discussion on Talk:Kylie, because you previously commented in a previous RM on the same subject. Thank you, Calidum ¤ 03:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, GregKaye. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Greg, greetings and all best wishes for 2017! Hope all goes well with you. P-123 ( talk) 11:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Really appreciated. Hope things are going well. Greg Kaye 11:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, GregKaye! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a new WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 18:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to reach out to you regarding a title change discussion in Joaquín Guzmán's talk page. You were involved in a previous change there in 2015. I'd love to read your input. Thank you! ComputerJA ( ☎ • ✎) 15:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects throughout the month of June as part of the fourth annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign. Feel free to add new and expanded content on the project's Results page. Happy editing! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 14:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
WikiLGBT is on Twitter! | |
---|---|
|
Template:Admin talk page banner has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, GregKaye. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Greg, I have been reading your RM at Talk:Belizeans from three years ago. It felt like a strong consensus, but it doesn’t appear to have fixed the mass confusion in most other ethnic group articles (see Category:High-importance Ethnic groups articles). Do you have any advice on how best to proceed with this? Onceinawhile ( talk) 15:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I never got around to thanking you a couple of years ago for coming to my aid during some kind of discussion related to a block (I think). Anyway, I've been looking through some professional wrestling topics and find the lack of references to be shocking. I saw your name somewhere in the talk pages and was hoping you could bring me up to speed on this topic. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 14:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Re Category:Media presentation of Islamic terrorism, please see proposed rename at the foot of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 2. – Fayenatic London 22:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, GregKaye. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, there is an RM discussion you may be interested in since you have participated in the past:
/info/en/?search=Talk:Chairman#Requested_move_22_March_2019
Any input would be appreciated. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 03:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Syria/Syrian Civil War task force. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Syria/Syrian Civil War task force redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. PBS ( talk) 10:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, since you were involved in previous naming discussions, would you like to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers#Article titles for rivers in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus? Markussep Talk 08:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Category:Persecution of homosexuals in Islam has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ★Trekker ( talk) 17:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have expressed views relating to overpopulation as a problem until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.
Nsk92 ( talk) 17:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Template:User supports peace in the Middle East, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Unused Userboxes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template:User supports peace in the Middle East during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 23:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I have a question. Is University Park any longer a CDP? As far as I can see, there is no Census data for 2020. Has the place merged with another one for Census purposes? Thank you in advance for your reply. Regards, Dionysos1988 ( talk) 13:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of UK number 1 men's tennis players until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.
Bonoahx ( talk) 16:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of UK number 1 men's tennis players (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.
ForzaUV ( talk) 18:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of organisations campaigning for population stabilisation, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of organisations campaigning for population stabilisation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot ( talk) 01:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the edit of Eve Barlow. I suspect it may be moved to an Afd debate, though I believe she passes WP:GNG and particularly WP:AUTHOR. In the case that it does, would you be able to weigh in and share your honest opinion? Thank you in advance. (It would be worth noting, though its sad that I have to, but I have zero connection to the subject. I am trying to create a listing of notable journalist who do not yet have a wikipedia article). PaulPachad ( talk) 13:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I've removed part of your comment on that article's talk page (see Talk:Amber_Heard#How_to_really_help_Amber). Talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article, not getting involved in the lives of their subjects. 22:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I got a notification that you brought up my username on the page Talk:Amber Heard, for that quickly-removed section "How to really help Amber." In the future, don't involve me in anything like that ever again. Thank you. Afddiary ( talk) 03:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi GregKaye. I hope you are well. I'm doing a series on Journalists and I created one for Jessica Abo. /info/en/?search=Jessica_Abo It is now in an AfD debate. In my opinion its mistaken but I'm biased. Would you be able to weigh in to the discussion and share your honest opinion? Thank you so much in advance. PaulPachad ( talk) 21:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Insert: changing title from == Edit warring on the Depp v. Heard page == after accuser's complete failure to present evidence that I "appear to be engaged in an edit war". Greg Kaye 09:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
I know it's hard. But I really think you need to slow down a bit on this topic Greg. I know you think you are right but try listening to what all the other editors are telling you. Maybe edit some other topics for a while and come back after a pause. It's hard to edit those contentious pages if you don't have a lot of experience with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You don't have to do it all by yourself. Trust that the process of Wikipedia will produce a neutral point of view for this article. If you are trying too hard to impose a certain point of view you are probably the one suffering from some kind of bias. {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 16:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
"appear to be engaged in an edit war". Explain how! Otherwise the only thing apparent is your WP:Harrassment. Greg Kaye 22:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
"Nothing more than that"?
The purpose of an article's WP:Talk page ... is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article ..."
"currently appear to be engaged in an edit war"with no justification. I base my editing on the WP:Rules and, on this point, several editors are also disputing with you. Greg Kaye 11:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Greg, regarding primary versus secondary. This opinion piece by Fran Winston, it would be a primary source on a hypothetical article on Fran Winston, but it is a secondary source on Depp v Heard. Meanwhile, this news article by Analisa Novak would be a primary source for a hypothetical article on Analisa Novak, but it is a secondary source for Depp v Heard. Even our news sources are simply primary sources for the author’s determination of facts, if you want to look at it in this way. starship .paint ( exalt) 01:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". The article is editorially titled to read Amber Heard's lawyer reveals what actress said right after verdict. The CBS journalist reports on content not originating from her and acts as a source for Bredehoft's statement on
"One of the first things she said when she came back from the verdict ..."Wikipedia can certainly use the Novak article to report on or reflect things like that statement but that's as far as we go.
"If Alice writes down an idea, and Bob simply quotes her work, and Chris refers to Bob's quotation, and Daisy cites Chris, and so forth, you very likely have a string of primary sources, rather than one primary, one secondary, one tertiary,..."Greg Kaye 11:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion.From this, it is obvious that opinion pieces, are ... well, allowed. Oh, and I didn't know where to put it, but my activity level on-wiki has already started to drop as of recently. starship .paint ( exalt) 12:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
author's own thinkingand the ruling against opinion". As things are, news is considered typically primary material and opinion in news as primary opinion. I'm not sure if anyone has a handle on where the border of where primary opinion becomes secondary opinion. I think it's just that news is considered primary. Greg Kaye 20:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 03:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
"incorrect inference using wp:or/ wp:synth". With people that persisted with unfounded accusation, you've greenlit continued wp:crystal based assertions. Greg Kaye 12:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
"incorrect inference using wp:or/ wp:synth"? You say,
"you've had your shot". I didn't want a shot. I didn't want any of this, on repeat with nothing retracted. This isn't a cage ring and I didn't want to get dragged in. I wanted to get on with dealing, to the best of my ability, to deal with things like balance and mos:instruct abuses. I can't even confront an accuser who misrepresents and who addresses others rather than me directly. Its shattering. I'd made a bid for disarmament. How did your intervention help? Greg Kaye 15:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Greg, (1) regardless of whether you wanted a shot or not, you've already had your shot at WP:ANI, you've already confronted Changing at WP:ANI, unless you're referring to someone else. (2) I note that your claim of a mix-up between the "UK" and the "US" at 13:01, 16 June is the second explanation. The first explanation on 07:06, 13 June stated: My edit to "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK" gave accurate reference to article content while linking to the newly formed Differences between the US and the UK trials section. You have edited back to edit of Starship.paint of which I also approved. One of the advantages of my edit is that it linked to content that I developed to include the topic of freedom of speech as referenced in the article. Another advantage of the text at my edit was that it gave easy flow: 'Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK. Heard's spokesperson and lawyer said she intends to appeal the decision. When asked about a possible settlement, Depp's lawyer referenced the trial to say, "this was never about money."' I think this a more constructive way to present article content.
There are two reasons why (2) is concerning. (2a) If I purely WP:AGF, then your claim of a mix-up between the "UK" and the "US" is correct, which means that at 07:06, 13 June you either hadn't realised the mix-up despite nearly 800 words of protest from other editors and would take another 3+ days to actually realise it, or that you realised the mistake but didn't even mention it in your 500+ words reply on 07:06, 13 June. Either way, this calls into question your competence.
(2b) If I actually analyse the situation, I don't believe that there was a mix-up. You wrote and linked to "Differences between the US and the UK trials". [25] Every difference you wrote favoured Depp and not Heard (jury trial, divorce money, Heard defendant, new witnesses, anti-SLAPP, learning from previous trial). That section has no mention that legal experts considered the US trial harder to win. If you were directly linking a lede sentence that the US trial was harder to win to a body section that suggests that the US trial was easier to win.... this also calls into question your competence.
(3) Even if I were to ignore all misrepresentations, you still made mistakes. Thus, you are in a hole, Greg. Stop digging, it is a strategic mistake. You’re risking sanctions every day that the ANI thread remains open. Same thing with Changing’s talk page, let it go. starship .paint ( exalt) 02:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
"fire", and with a desire to add some sort of rebuttal on a variety of issues while other editor comments flooded in. Best I can say is that I'd used the content of a <ref> reference within content that I developed to include the topic of freedom of speech which I added into the article. The citation that I brought into the differences section [27] both allowed addition of the freedom of speech content and indicated that
"Mr Depp had a weaker chance of winning than he did in the UK". As far as content is concerned, I'd intended to go with that.
GregKayethree times in the same post that presented capitalised reference to " WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH". I'd certainly be delighted if we can all
"let it go"and would like to ensure this can happen.
"If I actually analyse the situation, I don't believe that there was a mix-up.""I ... believe that there was a mix-up" - but can't go much further than that. I gave the best analysis I could. I also took your advice and first fought the fire in the sub thread below. I still think I have a right to reply and I tried my best. If you have any advice on how to convey the content of my reply more effectively I'd gratefully receive it. I value our
"mutually beneficial"discussions on issues like understandings of rules... You are the only editor here who's opinion I internally care about. Greg Kaye 16:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
"how Wikipedia treats such delicate subjects"such as in your wanting to push "wife beater" references by The Sun despite it barely playing a role in the Nicol judgement and wanting to spell out Darvo...? I don't think I'm the one to
"answer every message at all costs."[32] Greg Kaye 12:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
"wife beater"in introduction to
"the great majority of alleged assaults of Ms Heard by Mr Depp have been proved to the civil standard". "Beaten" is the kind of description that can be used with "left for dead" or "to a pulp" etc. which was not the level of the
"alleged assaults"involved.
"it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."I also appreciate you've mentioned some primary vehicles using the reference. I don't see it as being representative of the trial in question but, yes, it can fit in with rules in certain contexts. Perhaps I've been overly concerned about
"delicate subjects". Greg Kaye 15:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
It becomes a problem when we present "wife beater" in introduction to "the great majority of alleged assaults of Ms Heard by Mr Depp have been proved to the civil standard".- disagree because this is exactly the UK judge's ruling ("wife beater" came extremely early in his ruling document and is the crux of the case). MacMillian Dictionary: "wife-beater" is a man who regularly hits his wife. Collins Dictionary: "wife-beater" is a person who hits his or her wife. No mention of beaten to a pulp or left for dead. starship .paint ( exalt) 01:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
"wife beater" came extremely early in his ruling documentbut this was in explaining that the online claim appeared briefly as per:
From about 7.58am on 28th April 2018 the headline of the website article was changed....
"Wife beater"is a loaded, I'd say pejorative term may certainly explain why tabloid The Sun used it but can also explain why, even they, rapidly realised the need to drop it's sensationalist use.
"crux of the case"could refer to any potentially decisive point but "wife beater" specifically does not appear again, other than in footnotes, in the Nicol judgement.
"delicate subjects"?
"Biographies of living persons (" BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy."and yet the lede of the Depp v. Heard article makes introduction to actual legal issues with a tabloid reference from The Sun. WP:BLPBALANCE says,
"Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone."
"I have never, never wanted to be seen as a victim".
In a separate libel trial, Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd in July 2020, the presiding judge concluded that "the great majority of alleged assaults of Ms Heard by Mr Depp have been proved to the civil standard". What's wrong with that as an intro to the legalities of Depp v. Heard? Greg Kaye 10:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
"real life business"presented in a
"succinct way", under the topic is the Depp v. Heard trial, its lead had already had presented issues extensively:
"The actors, who married in February 2015, divorced after Heard claimed in May 2016 that Depp had abused her physically, which he denied. In a separate libel trial, Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd in July 2020, the presiding judge concluded that "the great majority of alleged assaults of Ms Heard by Mr Depp have been proved to the civil standard. Several legal experts suggested that Depp had a smaller chance of winning in the US trial compared to the UK trial", (which had already ignored a wider sequential context within which, "The actors,... divorced after Heard claimed in May 2016 that Depp had abused her physically..." came after Depp's evidenced intent to divorce Heard).
"Sensationalist? Yes"which presents a rules based contention when WP:BLP says
"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively"and that
"it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist".
"flawed"yet we similarly find that
"wife beater"also
"only appears in a small minority of news article titles relating to"Depp "The Sun".
“alleged assaults” is absolutely fine as well. Remarkably, even The Sun found
“wife beater”either to be non representative of the significantly time spaced alleged incidents or The Sun thought it too sensationalist. Greg Kaye 06:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 00:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
"welcome to discuss them"reference made and suggest this as an ideal for general practice on any issues arising. I look forward to the development of materials that give fair consideration to issues such as WP:Due/ WP:Balance as well as the concept that "the same rules need to apply to all" in regard to rules such as WP:OR and WP:Coatrack. Greg Kaye 08:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Recently there have been some IP user contributions on the 1st and 4th July, 2022 (that have included talk page comments) with the IP potentially being based in Lyme Regis, Exeter or London. [33] If you find any comments by a non-registered/less-than-well established user, consider deleting. If this is an editor who also has an established account, please login. Greg Kaye 14:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Are you aware of this rule? You have made at least 1 2 3 4 reverts on the Depp v. Heard page... why are you doing this Greg? Please self revert and discuss on the talk page if you really want that content to be included. I've explained my objections to that content in detail in the edit summaries. {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 22:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
"Editors may propose a change to current consensus". Absolutely, even after our previously strong and policy based consensus was achieved, your appropriate action would be to have left it to talk page discussion. Greg Kaye 12:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.{{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 16:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
"challenging it is very very easy"then the place that you might attempt this would be within talk page discussion. The consensus is based on WP:NPOV WP:BALANCE. There's nothing
"contentious"in a juror saying that the jurors fulfilled the jobs of jurors, and yet there' plenty that's comparatively contentious in people who don't know the jurors speculating that they didn't do their jobs. As to the material itself, it's excellently
"sourced"as based on strong WP:RS. Editors have advocated, by consensus, for its inclusion and other editors have added to or replaced sections of the content. If there's a debate on the content, you know where to hold it. We're done here. Greg Kaye 17:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Insert result: Result: Blocked, along with Gtoffoletto, for 24 hours. Comment: I think it's a bit harsh seeing that I hadn't even broken WP:BRD but was reverting persistent attempts to remove comments of a juror from an article about a jury trial. Greg Kaye 17:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:GregKaye reported by User:VQuakr (Result: ). Thank you. VQuakr ( talk) 18:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Daniel Case (
talk) 22:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Contexts:
(
Daniel Case, certainly, genuine thanks to you for extending the conclusion to,
... Blocked, along with Gtoffoletto, for 24 hours. I'm also grateful for the intervention of (historically involved Depp v. Heard) editor Homeostasis07, who provided some further context for the discussion. Appreciation to for in-discussion advice given by VQuakr which, as I noted, applies to both sides).
Gtoffoletto (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log),
Gtoffoletto edits to Depp v. Heard
GregKaye (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log),
GregKaye edits to Depp v. Heard
In relation to an article on the topic of a
jury trial, Gtoffoletto was unilaterally and repeatedly removing a section of content on
#Comments by juror despite policy based support
having been given for inclusion of this content on the article's talk page. Since my final
restitution of the content, substantial additions have been made by two editors
[34]
[35] to the Comments by juror section further demonstrating a justified support for the content that I'd previously understood to exist.
As part of a broader context, Gtoffoletto had presented justifications for the exclusion of material on the basis of
an essay
[36]
[37]
[38] and yet, even though the essay on
WP:BRD had been taken as the standard in discussion at
Talk:Depp v. Heard, suddenly Gtoffoletto adopted a sequence of repeated removals of the juror content. No comment regarding 3RR was made in edit summaries made and yet, after that limit was superseded, Gtoffoletto rapidly began the above
WP:3RR thread. He also chose this time to
post at
WP:BLPN and, among issues, I suspect that a timed attempt at
WP:Gaming the system had been involved. This said, I appreciate we'd both violated the
three-revert rule. It's been a learning experience.
Greg
Kaye 08:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Writing this was a grave misjudgment on your part. "I'll not harass you if you edit the way I feel you should" is such a gross take. Combined with your continued edit warring post-block, ( [39] and [40]) I highly doubt you'd avoid a topic ban or one-way iban if it came up for discussion at ANI right now. Please reflect on whether you have the patience and restraint to keep editing in this subject area or the decision will soon be made for you. VQuakr ( talk) 22:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
"., if you make your off-talk page actions and talk page contents give no cause for reasonable response, that as ever should be fine". What would you do if another editor got as far as breaking policy or if editors were making refutable comments about you on their talk pages? Regarding
"edit warring", I've not broken WP:BRD. Regarding your first in parenthesis link, that followed a revert that stood for nine hours before I effectively self reverted. Greg Kaye 04:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
"try again on a reply that only mentions your own behavior"but, when another editor get's blocked for edit warring, they respond by raising distorted and out of context comments about me despite, as far as I have seen, their behavior being worse. In a further example, if an editor makes claim on a talk page that you have edit warred when you hadn't even broken brd while they had, is it fair to set the record straight. Take a read of that claims of "misconduct" thread. Another editor raised the issue of boomerang with substantial editor support subsequently weighing in on issues I mentioned and even the canvassed editors being readily refuted. If editors present distorted or out of context depictions of others, how is it not fair to present truth directly in response? Greg Kaye 10:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi gregKaye, On Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd an editor also active on Depp v Heard is adamant on using the original title. They reverted several edits from multiple editors and seems to get away with doing so. I reverted their edit once. I even got a message saying I'm edit warring, from another person which immediately got deleted by this same person, who then reverted my revert. Maybe this is of interest to you. Thanks anyway for your relentless efforts of keeping these articles truthful, balanced and fair. Kind regards, AknolIikiW ( talk) 08:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks :-) AknolIikiW ( talk) 15:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Optimum population, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optimum population until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot ( talk) 01:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Category:Human rights under the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Human rights under territory-controlling groups indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 01:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Category:Advocates of women's reproductive rights has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason ( talk) 00:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
|
|||
|
“ Jim Jones, David Koresh and Meir Kahane do not typify Christianity and Judaism in the eyes of the civilized West, but those same eyes are prone to see Osama bin Laden and Mullah Muhammad Omar as typifying Islam ” — Richard Bulliet
- WP:TALK#USE: "Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity.."
I didn't mean to thank you-just accidentally hit button on badly-designed mobile interface which also makes it almost impossible to post in correct place on a long talkpage. Sorry about that. Pam D 05:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I also created categories concerning the persecution of Copts, Greeks, Kurds, and Sami. If you wanted to nominate these categories for renaming, which I would be supportive of, perhaps they could be renamed something along the lines of Category:Anti-Assyrian sentiment, Category:Anti-Yazidi sentiment, etc? There are already a number of categories with that naming convention, such as Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment or Category:Anti-Polish sentiment. Would that work? Solar-Wind ( talk) 18:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello GregKaye, Based on my reading of your user page, I have gotten the impression that you may have expertise on Israel. Therefore and together with the fact that you are the only person whom I know to have an interest in Israel, I thought you may be able to provide some much needed perspective in a dispute. I was hoping you would help take over arbitration on an article where I feel my limited experience means that I am no longer able to help in carrying the discussion forward. I think if I carried on I would be doing a disservice to the other editors but mostly to readers as it is regarding insertion of a statement into the lead. I am also starting to question if I am using wiki policy in the right way when deciding if a sentence is a statement of fact. It is a very hot issue and the article is part of active arbitration remedies. I will not discuss the merits of the issue here but just ask that your read through the dispute and provide some valuable insight. I understand you may be busy so I completely understand if you say no. If you decide to go for it, let me know so that I can disengage from the conversation. The issue is the inclusion of a statement into the lead of the main Israel article. It is being discussed here:
/info/en/?search=Talk:Israel#Discussion_on_actual_wording
Regarding your post on my talk page, I will reply when I catch my breath. Mbcap ( talk) 14:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, GregKaye. After you were banned from interacting with P-123 just a few days ago, you have "thanked" the user twice, and also thanked some other editors for P-123-related edits. It's difficult to take that as simple gratitude, and it's certainly interaction. You need to stop poking holes through your IBAN right now. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC).
Thanks for you efforts to make the Israel article a NPOV article. Gouncbeatduke ( talk) 01:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC) |
Something you said got me digging in the tools. On one article you have 468 edits (5.68% of total) and I have 432 edits (5.25% of total) right now. Your first edit was 8 Sept and mine Aug 10. I checked several other users and found one recently active one at almost 3%, several at 0.5% and the highest I could find was at 28.74%. http://tools.wmflabs.org/usersearch/index.html Legacypac ( talk) 04:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
GregKaye you still need to change you signature to your new name, at the moment it links to your old name User:Gregkaye and User talk:Gregkaye and then is redirected back to your new name User:GregKaye. -- PBS ( talk) 12:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
see Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#Requested move December 2014 -- PBS ( talk) 12:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
As it happens I do not think any muppet will be jumping up and down at this move, but as an involved editor you should not have made it. It should have been obvious from my posting that I intended to close it as soon as I though enough time had passed for those who wished to express an opinion on my proposed dab extension had been given time to express an opinion. We have seen contested pre-emptive moves in this area and making one yourself means that in future you will not be able to criticise such move without exposing yourself to accusations of hypocrisy. -- PBS ( talk) 10:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Please consider moving the two pages, 'Category:Islamist terrorist incidents, 2000-2009' and 'Category:Islamist terrorist incidents, 2010-2019' to 'Category:Islamist terrorist incidents, 2000–2009' and 'Category:Islamist terrorist incidents, 2010–2019', respectively. -- Omnipaedista ( talk) 15:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
You need to move your expressed opinion up out of the "Further discussion" section or it may be missed by the closing admin. Most of the comment can stay there (just change "oppose" to "comment") and place a new opinion (presumably oppose) up above in the survey part along with a brief reason for your opposition to the move. -- PBS ( talk) 20:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, the editor raising the issue at ANI was the same editor avoiding a block. This is a long-term problem editor from South America who has previously been blocked numerous times for trolling such pages. They are quite aware that their behaviour is an issue and so WP:DENY is the best route here. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
GregKaye, there are some editors so disruptive over a period of time that it is senseless to negotiate with them. Kudos for assuming good faith, but this time it's not going to work. Jehochman Talk 15:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The main problem with the usage of words such as "Islamist" is that there is a huge misconception in western world that thinks Islam is one monolithic thing, when in reality Islam has may branches and interpretrations. When you place such a suffix as "-ist" it only perpetuates this misunderstanding. 80.43.207.148 ( talk) 10:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Do I detect a taste of sour grapes? Pdfpdf ( talk) 10:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Discrimination
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Discrimination for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (jive) @ 20:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at WP:MR to which you may be associated with. The thread can be found here. Thanks. Qxukhgiels ( talk) 22:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello Gregkaye. My apologies for the late reply, I was slightly indisposed. Having looked through the points you had previously raised, I will attempt to address them.
Point 1 - "Circus"
Point 2 - me raising issue at your mention of life taking killers (I am not sure if I did raise an issue but I will assume I did)
Point 3 - your comment on ISIL page with stamp: 11:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I hope that cleared some of the issues at hand. Regards Mbcap ( talk) 23:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
No legacypac, you are simply by my impression, the owner of the ISIL page. You close discussions, censor talk page posts by other IP's, you blank other IP's posts (does not matter if they are socks, their comment stays), you have according to me; complete disregard for building an encyclopedia as shown by your revert of my addition of the ISIL portal link and you label others as cyber terrorist, dirty socks and so on. You are here to simply further your agenda and using this encyclopedia as a political advocacy tool. I will not put up with this. You are extremely disrespectful as shown by your attempted bullying on the ISIl talk page regarding the justifications section. You disparage the work of other editors by calling it nonsense. You delete good revertes such as the one of the Abu Bakr Al-baghdadi page because they, by my impression, do not further your own cause in light of your world view. This is not a soapbox or a political think tank. We are here simply to build an encyclopedia. It is just a shame that I do not know my way around here but hopefully someday I will find a way to do away with your bullying, innapropriate manners and strong arming of other editors. I promise you a day will come when every editor will be made felt welcome on the ISIl page or any other related pages. Mbcap ( talk) 17:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Has anyone seen my talk page? I'm sure it was here somewhere. What the hell fuck is going on.
Mbcap the whole presence of this thread is inappropriate as it was started in response to involved content on your talk page.
Legacypac, similarly I have repeatedly asked you to consider the ways in which you join in discussions in threads on my talk page and, in general, I would prefer you not to do it. Mbcap, wtf. I am my own person. I present what I think is right for the presentation of encyclopaedic content in Wikipedia in accordance with its guidelines and in this I am deeply offended that you describe me as someone's "enabler". This, like all other locations in Wikipedia, is not the place for you to air your "impressions". Your actions continue, in your words, to alienate. All you are doing is asserting unsubstantiated vague allusions with no substance, amazing coming from an editor who makes criticisms about empty air. If you think I am an enabler then please read the background to this talk page and the fallacy of your argument will soon become crystal clear. It becomes more clear to me that you present one unsubstantiated criticism and spin after another. Don't come to my talk page saying that you are sorry for past offences while merely continuing your jibes. I stand on my own and will continue to resist your slurs and insinuations. The main person that I have enabled is you. The Barndoor thread had utterly lost its track and It Was Me who gave it a chance to get back on its direction. Legacypac, if there are "articles at WP I find hugely POV and offensive" and you let them alone, then let them alone. If you have points to make about specific contents then make them. I do not want my talk page to become part a battleground. You close discussions with regularity and while, arguably, you are "fully entitled" to do so, it is none-the-less unsettling for editors who see potentially unnecessary closures occurring. If you want to address issues with other editors then please do so on that editor's talk page. Any content henceforth on this threat that is not addressed to me will be deleted. Any attack or unsubstantiated content will be treated similarly.
Greg
Kaye 20:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Your recent editing history at Template:Largest cities of Israel shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Regards, “ WarKosign ” 13:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
add: The following relates to content placed on StanMan87's talk page here
You have provided two possible choices: Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and ISIS (Islamist rebel group). I opted to vote for the former, with the acronym of ISIS replacing ISIL when referring to the group not only in the main body of the article, but any article which refers to the group as ISIL so as to match the new title which would be Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. I don't know if this is confusing for you... The "A re-cap for you:" section was to illustrate to RGloucester that he favors the title which provides the least amount of either 1.) Accuracy or 2.) Commonality/Recognition out of all the possible names for the group, and the acronyms associated with them. As for the group not being considered Islamic, this is debatable. What makes Saudi Arabia so different from the Islamic State? I will say that both you and I have completely different views on that little Pandora's box you just mentioned. I will say no more than that. That comment you are referring to was completely 100% relevant. You should be aware that you are calling the article something the group is not which therefore will mislead users. What I mean by this is the designation Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria/Greater Syria/al-Sham will become irrelevant (as if it has already) if the group continues expanding far beyond those regions which they have started doing ever since late 2014, albeit slowly. Algeria, Libya, Egypt (Sinai), parts of the Afghan-Pakistan border and now apparently in Yemen [1] are places where IS has a presence. So this is a very relevant question which has to be looked at when deciding to refer to the article title as anything else except either Da'ish or Islamic State (IS). Are you just going to pretend that IS doesn't exist outside Iraq and Syria to stop it from being renamed Islamic State? That is irresponsible. Sooner or later, if/when IS becomes more prevalent outside Iraq in Syria not only in the regions I mentioned, but even in places like Xinjiang in China or the Caucasus region, having either Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) will no longer be appropriate for the title of the article, unless a disclaimer has been placed as to why Wikipedia will not rename it which will be considered as adhering to a sharp POV, something an Encyclopedia doesn't possess. But you are going to have to find a way to solve that little problem pretty soon. StanMan87 ( talk) 08:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Gregkaye, would you be able to tell me if it is standard practice to ping editors when you reply to them. Most of the time I do, do it but I have seen a few instances where I have not done so as I am sure you are aware. On a side note thank you for your recent response on the unrecognized states article. The ISIL topic is very interesting and I can see how one could spend all their time here just on that. If myself or any other editors errs by misapplying policy in a non-neutral way then I am hoping my more senior colleagues such as yourself will provide assistance in understanding such issues more clearly. Regards
Note added later; if you would permit me to ask one more question, can youtube be used as a source when writing articles? I am sure that is not allowed but would just like some clarification. Mbcap ( talk) 09:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Heya, I see you put Tel Avivi and Tel Aviveet as the transliterations for תל אביבי and תל אביבית, respectively. I've no problem with the male form, but the female form used implies a longer i-sound (like Arabic ي) than is really there. Tel Avivit would be pronounced with the same sound as Tel Avivi, but with a -t at the end of course (unless you're dealing with Yiddish speakers who'd give a weird -s sound, but no one cares what they think) and would sound exactly like if you were to put the English word 'it' at the end of Tel Aviv and run the two together. That's also the common transliteration for ית-. Just my thoughts on the matter. :) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 19 Shevat 5775 18:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I've changed my name from John Smith the Gamer to Banak Banak ( talk) 01:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I am wondering how to add an article to the Discrimination series. I saw that you have made edits there before and I thought you may be able to help. I have recently improved the Anti-kurdism page and wish to add it to the discrimination series. Is there anywhere you can point me to that explains this? Thanks.
The page should be moved to ISIS. There is strong support for a move to ISIS. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is wrong, but even I support a move to ISIS. I've made a proposal as such. Please comment. RGloucester — ☎ 06:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Re your edit here - I thought we were having an RfC to decide this? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 16:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I created and am inviting you to another move discussion; join in. -- George Ho ( talk) 19:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but in my hatting here, the hat gobbled up your comment which is still relevant to the topic. I don't want to be so presumptious as to move (and thus accidentally misrepresent) your comment, and so I'm letting you know so you can move it somewhere you think it fits best. Cheers! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16 Adar 5775 02:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello Gregkaye, would you be kind enough to suggest a source, possibly a book about the history of Israel and Palestine. And secondly what is the difference between the SoP and the Palestinian territories? Is this question relevant to the RM being discussed on the SoP page? Regards Mbcap ( talk) 17:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I was sort of compelled into developing an interest in the Israel/Palestine issue and it is a long story which I am sure is not that interesting. Too often on the University campus you would meet members of the Palestinian society and the Jewish Society, handing out leaflets and criticising each other. I know that Israel and Jewish are similar but different identities. It just happens that at the University I attend, the Jewish Society is Pro-Israel. All this while their stalls are next to each other. I would go to the Palestinian stall and hear them speak against the Israeli's and then I would go the Jewish society stall and hear them criticise the Palestinian's. Have you ever been in the middle of an argument between two of your friends, and not known what to do or who to side with or not? That is what it was like. Add to this, the incident where the administrative building including the Chancellor's office became the scene of a sit in against the University's selling of Israeli products. Furthermore, there is the sheer inescapable coverage of the conflict on the news. I guess what I am trying to say is that I was simply unable to escape the issue. When I attempted to research the area, I found that on the issue is covered in such a way as to suggest an inherent existence of a dichotomy between two people. This is where I have been stuck as I do not know what to read to gain a greater understanding of the issue. On a professional level, I have an interest in Medicine and Israel is a physicians dream destination to learn new techniques in the field and to also learn how to push new frontiers in medical research, something which Israel is proficient at. My professional interests also extend towards the neurocognitive basis of expertise. Israel is home to greatest number of patents registered per capita and the country is a sight to behold as it is literally flooded with experts in a wide variety of fields. As to Palestine, I have many colleagues who travel there to provide medical aid and their verbal accounts are quite sad to hear which by the include stories of checkpoints and processing at the Airport, just like you have previously mentioned. These are some of the things that have drawn me to area but it is all too confusing. I refuse to believe that one side is solely responsible for all of this, there is probably enough blame to go around to everyone and then some. Please do take a lot of the opinions in this post with a pinch of salt because it is the opinion of someone ignorant of the background information. Mbcap ( talk) 20:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Greg
this edit made a mess of the formatting of the section, it should have gone in the survey subsection (although it also contains some discussion).
Would you like to fix it? Alternatively I can, either by moving your support to the relevant subsection or by just removing the now inappropriate subsection headings completely. Andrewa ( talk) 06:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Please revert Hel (deity) back to Hel (being). There is a long series of talk page discussions about this on the talk page. Most importantly, nowhere is Hel listed as a deity. :bloodofox: ( talk) 16:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Greek mythology and Ancient Greek religion are not the same thing. Please stop changing one to the other. Paul August ☎ 16:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Paul August I raised the issue to you here with "an illustration of the extent that the interpretation as mythology is being pushed". I would appreciate any views on this and of any ideas for potential changes.
I also appreciate your mention above of Menoetius (Greek mythology) and I notice that this content is not placed within Category:Greek gods. Can I get you opinion on the specific contents of this category and that of Category:Greek goddesses - are there any characters in these categories who's titles contain parenthesis but which you would not classify as deities and fitting the description god or goddess? Thanks. Greg Kaye 18:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I've asked the editor why but seems to have been an undiscussed article blanking involved. In ictu oculi ( talk) 15:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Yay, another move request! Okay, so obviously I'm sitting this one out, but I really, really think that the two moves should've been done as a single multi-move. (I'm concerned about half the editors on one RM missing the discussion on another, and leading to two inconsistent titles, among other problems.) Do you agree? If so, would you mind please closing one of the two moves and making the other one a multi-move? I would have done it myself, but, lol, obviously I would not put myself in that situation again! Red Slash 21:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello Gregkaye, just to let you know, whenever I address you via ping form, the name comes out as Greg when I press save edit. My apologies if you prefer being addressed with your full name. I just have no clue how to get the full username in. Mbcap ( talk) 16:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I find the telegraphic style that you have used at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation very hard to interpret. It would help me, and doubtless DexDor, if you could provide a little more detail and background regarding your thoughts. Also, apparently you put some store by root word analysis of text. Could you recommend an informatics article on the technique and its value? -- Bejnar ( talk) 22:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
That was insulting.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 06:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
You lack tact. You've made a grave error in attempting mass RMs. Moves should be done on a case by case basis. You've completely destroyed any chance for any of these articles to be moved. RGloucester — ☎ 23:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Please explain what value you see in the content with the questionable title "Naturalness"". Please also respond to comment at: Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Propose presenting content before style in WP:CRITERIA. Read it through. Policies presently present a variety of inconsistencies and absurdities or weirdness as you might interpret it. Greg Kaye 05:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Greg! Good to see you so active in ISIS still. Haven't been editing in Wikipedia so much lately and will most likely not return to the fray in ISIS. Fond memories of our early collaboration remain and here's hoping we can put our differences behind us. ~ P-123 ( talk) 21:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your response to my apology on the ANI page.
Since posting that response, I decided to begin working on minor copyedits on articles I'm interested in reading. However, a couple of other users are watching me and won't seem to accept any change I make. In particular I made a very minor, trivial edit to Iraq, promoting another user to post repeated 'warnings' that I'll be blocked without warning for posting 'unverifiable' content. (The edit added an undisputed fact.) I removed those 'warnings' from my talk page, as I found them quite frustrating.
Since you seem to be open to giving people the chance to learn how to navigate the site, I'd greatly appreciate your input if you could spare the time to look into the issue. ... Thanks in advance for your consideration. JoeM ( talk) 06:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
List of Islamist terrorist attacks is now a thing, and Islamist terrorism may soon follow. I know that this is a very big deal to you; congratulations. I felt the same when Kosovo finally became an article about the country; it is awesome to feel that your efforts have made a difference in shaping how people worldwide view the world. I wish you the very best in your continued efforts here on Wikipedia. (See, I told you I was never against your move.) Red Slash 19:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Before launching a move request on this subject, I would suggest that you have a look at the previous requests to see where they fell short, and to the extensive study of the topic that I put together last year at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/Move rationale. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I am pretty clearly a fanatic", there is no excuse. I have opened things up for text development on the Clinton page but I do not want to work with you. Greg Kaye 13:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey Greg,
Good work with the HRC RM proposal. Not sure how familiar you are with the last discussion on this topic. You may want to glance at it. This is definitely one of the more controversial topics I've come across on WP. You/we may want to step into another another RM with our eyes open.
Expect resistance. NickCT ( talk) 14:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
NickCT Can you help me, what is the motivation for favouring the Rodham name? Greg Kaye 15:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
BD2412, Calidum and NickCT the three of you have been "credited" in DD2K's 17:35, 26 April 2015 post as being the main editors from the last move request. Obviously you have no obligation to comment but I'm curious about motivation. For me, sure, I want the project to have common names represented and for Wikipedia not to have favourites but, to be honest, a lot of my contribution has been down to people aggressively, IMO, talking about wasting time or whatever and me thinking that I felt it fair to prove that we weren't wasting their time and a lot of it was a response to a variety of forms of flaming. Wikipedia can be an odd place sometimes. Greg Kaye 17:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
more policy based argument" seems utterly clear. I even tried to change policy to see if it could fit and was surprised by the hostile reaction. I haven't yet seen the MR. But I think that this must have also left something to be desired. Greg Kaye 01:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Please consider adding edit summaries to give other editors some inkling regarding the nature and purpose of your changes to Wikipedia pages. Butwhatdoiknow ( talk) 11:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Category:Women who notably have used a name that references surnames from both sides of their marriage/relationship, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Nymf ( talk) 14:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Have only just seen your comment following my diatribe re WP, which I appreciate. Am touched as ever by your moral support, Greg. Best, P-123 ( talk) 20:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
... Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence,... should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) ...". Please also refer to the previous AN/I for my opinion of the presentation of this type of content. Greg Kaye 08:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 20:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
How about you volunteer to stop your crusade, and instead take it to the MOS discussions and abide by consensus? The alternative is likely to be an enforced restriction. Guy ( Help!) 22:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.
Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT ( talk) 18:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
While I agree with you in some WP:RM and WP:AT discussions and disagree with you in others (i.e., I don't lump you into the same "does not understand Wikipedia titling at all, and is trying to warp it into something radically different" camp as B2C), I have to concur with DickLyon and RGloucester (who otherwise hardly ever seem to agree on anything) that you're sorely confusing the naturalness criterion of AT policy with natural disambiguation simply because they use the same word. There is no connection between them. They're separate and distinct, and generally don't interact at all.* Your two somewhat recent proposals at WT:AT have made not a whole lot of sense because of this confusion, and it also explains quite a number of your less supportable RMs. Please just re-read them carefully, and internalize the distinction. Think of the naturalness criterion policy as the "intuitiveness of the base title" criterion. This is a determination that is made before, and usually not affected by any need for, or form of, disambiguation. Think of the natural disambiguation policy as the "flows naturally as an English-language phrase" disambiguation pattern, a consideration that applies, necessarily, after a "natural" (intuitive) base title has been chosen, since it is a matter of how, linguistically, the base title and the disambiguator relate. If you get this right, an enormous amount of time and energy spent on kind of "WTF?"-ish article title policy and requested move debates will just never need to happen again. We all have way more productive things to spend our time here doing. :-) [*There are sometimes cases where we have two alternative titles that seem about equal under the criteria, but one needs disambiguation and the other doesn't; in those cases we more often go with the non-disambiguated one. But these are outlying cases, and still do not in any way blur the distinction between the two "natural" provisions in WP:AT.] — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
SMcCandlish the related WP:PG wording is:
To my mind this is nonsensical as it is presented in a way that, at the very least, puts it totally at odds with parenthetical disambiguation. Take the example of "
!!! (album)" as first on the list. I do not think that editors would typically take the entirety of this title as a link and this is demonstrated on the
!!! page in the use of the link "''[[!!! (album)|!!!]]''
". Similarly I do not think that editors would typically type a term in the form of "foobar (baz)" into a search engine. In effect, according to the argument that I have presented,
WP:NATURALNESS is written in a way in which it has little practical difference from
WP:NATURAL. I believe that this is one of the reasons that, in my perception, many Wikipedia editors take a form of
WP:NATURALdisambiguation, to be a policy preference. The only preference that we should have is to use the most appropriate titling that can be applied to any particular subject to meet WP:GOALS.
Greg
Kaye 03:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Everyone seems to get this". Maybe so within the context of WT:AT but I would love to see any evidence of the quantity of Wikipedia editors, say, after an initial reading of WP:AT, who understand a difference between Naturalness and NATURAL. Your input here has been really helpful and from what you say maybe the PG might be worded as something like:
An article title is the large heading displayed above the article's content. The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." There is no distinction made to "base title". The only talk is of "title". The text also, I think over prescriptively, presents "
For example, it would be inappropriate to title an article "Queen (rock band)", as Queen (band) is precise enough to distinguish the rock band from other uses of the term "Queen"." Again here " Queen (band)" is accurately described as being the title and yet, following Special:WhatLinksHere/Queen (band) and looking up August 19#Events we rapidly find the text "
*[[1951]] – [[John Deacon]], English bass player and songwriter ([[Queen (band)|Queen]])".
However, please re read what I said– I have, and doing so does not change my response. I'm reading your new reply carefully.
within the context of WT:AT– The context of WT:AT is Wikipedia article title policy, which is, obviously, also the context of WP:AT itself. It, in turn, is the naming policy that covers every single article here. By extension, this is also the context of all RM (and MR) discussions. So what other context are you talking about, exactly? You later said
within a conte[x]t on article titles, but that is the same context as that of WP:AT and WT:AT and WP:RM. Maybe you're trying to say you think that WT:AT regulars understand it and no one else does, but that clearly isn't true. Which brings us to ...
any evidence of the quantity of Wikipedia editors, say, after an initial reading of WP:AT, who understand a difference between Naturalness and NATURAL– The evidence is that both of the distinct policies are being consistently followed in actual practice, largely without incident. This is prima facie proof. Further evidence is that RM discussions, with few exceptions other than those involving you, do not confuse the two concepts with any frequency. If they did, we would have reworded them years ago. I'm still in favor of some rewording just to pre-empt any further such confusions, rare though they may be.
I do not think, within a conte[x]t on article titles, that using a word like title in ambiguous ways sets a very firm foundation– Then just fix it, or propose that it be fixed. I think I'll do this myself, just to be done with this.
We are not writing ... where various things are taken as matters of interpretation.Of course we are, and of course they are. You like to cite WP:PG a lot; read it again: "Use common sense when interpreting and applying policies and guidelines". How can we be interpreting P & G if they're not subject to interpretation? LOL. "Interpretation of policy" is a stock Wikipedia talk phrase. [13] Virtually everything about WP policy and guidelines is subject to interpretation, by design.
The only preference that we should have is to use the most appropriate titling that can be applied to any particular subject to meet WP:GOALS.– This is too vague to act on, and sounds like a proposal to delete most of WP:AT. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
SMcCandlish ☺ Thank you again. On your points.
2. Context of WT:AT - all I was saying was that people that edit there may on average have more understanding of titling policies than other editors.
3. Editors have generated/or relocated a number of John Smith, for example, articles to titles using middle names or initials that just weren't used in life. One editor even expressed that the adoption of an unused middle name was proposed so as to avoid the need for disambiguation. These are editors that have read WP:AT and still gained very erroneous understandings.
4. I was presenting WP:PG really as a representation of all contents starting "Wikipedia:..." which constitute Policy and Guidelines. Where does policy stop and guideline begin? Different editors may have different opinions. I had started saying WP:PG to cover both references.
9. You say: "It is quite literally logically impossible for WP:NATURALNESS to include any parenthetical disambiguator,
" so why is the wording written to state, "The title is one that ...
"? Why? The title, as is expressly presented from the opening text of the project page says that the title is the whole thing. You accuse me of
WP:POINTy behaviour. Everything that I have done is has been done in good faith so as to build as best that I have considered it possible, solid content in the encyclopedia.
Greg Kaye 18:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
(exclusive of any added [[#Disambiguation|parenthetical disambiguation]])" to the text so that it now reads:
An article title is the large heading displayed above the article's content. The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles."
Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects." and I am very glad of the clarification of the definition of "title" previously used.
Hello Greg, hope you are well. I was wondering if you would be able to help me out regarding a matter that has proved difficult to solve. Is there a way to get statistics in regards to page views relating to a category of article. For example, if I wanted to see how many page views the entire Gastroenterology articles have had as a collective, would that be possible. It has its own wikiproject.
Secondly and on a different matter entirely, I see what you mean about the BBC documentary subtitling the translation wrongly. I was surprised to see that they did not mention the name used by the person. When you mentioned it I thought they used Islamic State or IS as parenthetical qualification of Daesh or whatever it is that the different people use but they have skipped it all together. It is very strange.
Thirdly and I promise it will be the last question; how does consensus work exactly in regards to our discussions on the ISIL talk page? I ask this in reference to the discussion you started on Ideology. I remember we agreed to include Salafism, Jihadi Salafism and Wahhabism. Since that discussion that ideology infobox has changed numerous times. What is the point of having such a long discussion, reaching consensus and then only to have different content on the page. Maybe I am missing something obvious and I was hoping you could explain how this works exactly. Regards. Mbcap ( talk) 07:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello. You may be interested to oppose or comment on the recent move request at Talk:Pashtuns, because "Pashtuns" is clearly the concise and common plural demonym, therefore the best option for the article title. Regards, Khestwol ( talk) 11:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Talk:Islamic_economic_jurisprudence#Requested_move_19_April_2015 -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 18:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm asking editors (on both sides of the question) who have made responses to individual !votes in the survey section to move those discussions to subsections in the discussion section. That will keep things tidy. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for sticking up for me at the ANI discussion. Sadly, I guess now we know an editor may falsify facts, edit war to keep this from being revealed, insult others, and falsely accuse an opponent of having a "topic ban" and get off with no consequence at all. Such is the nature of the discussion as a whole. I know how you feel -- I'm not feeling like staying neutral too much longer either. Blessings!! Pandeist ( talk) 18:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello GregKaye! This is just to notify you that I have modified my requested move at Talk:Masjid al-Haram and limited it to one title ("Al-Masjid al-Haram"). So again vote! maybe? Khestwol ( talk) 21:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I had to ask you because you are active on these topics. Please keep an eye on ISIL, especially its infobox's ideology section (recent examples of disruptive edit-warring by a user just coming back from a 1 week topic-ban: [14], [15], [16]). Khestwol ( talk) 21:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Greg. Just wanted to mention what an interesting and epic discussion you started at the Hillary renaming page. It shall be remembered as long as Wikipedia is spoken about, in the lore of the wooded ones, the tales of those who dwell under bridges, and in the halls of grey academia for centuries to come (or for at least a couple of weeks). Nice work, and I'm interested now how much more will be added. My prediction about a 'Stephen King size' page may have been accurate! Cheers, salutations, and one of those spinning-star templates if I knew how to give one. Randy Kryn 9:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I think we have a long way to go not just in quantity but also, IMO, in relevance to the plot. As much for my ref as anything its also worth noting that the page falls short of the arguably more important issue of:
In this context I'll wait to see what happens at:
I somehow doubt that she will move mohammed let alone usurp the king .
Thanks for your kindness.
Greg Kaye 10:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Would you like to help find another optimal title at talk:Balochs? Thanks, Khestwol ( talk) 17:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Greg, I noticed that you have edited one of BD2412's barnstars to include some criticism. [17] It seems that you disagree about BD2412's response to someone else's question about alternatives to the word "disambiguation". BD2412 answered that disambiguation pages have been called that since at least 2002, and he linked to evidence of that. Apparently, you would have instead referred the questioner to this April 2015 discussion. But wasn't that April discussion about alternative ways of accomplishing disambiguation, rather than about alternatives to the word "disambiguation"? In other words, in the April 2015 discussion, it doesn't seem like you were suggesting to replace that word "disambiguation" with the word "navigation" in Wikipedia article titles. In my opinion, the person who later asked BD2412 about alternatives to the word "disambiguation" was not asking about anything more than whether that word should be replaced by another word in all Wikipedia titles. So the answer BD2412 gave seems reasonable to me, and not tendentious at all. But if you really think it was tendentious, and you really think BD2412 does not deserve the barnstar that you previously gave him, I think it would be better to just leave him a note saying that you withdraw the barnstar, rather than trying to change the barnstar from an award into something else. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages are navigation pages
Example text
In contrast a search on:
article navigation -Wikipedia
gets "About 555,000,000 results"
article disambiguation -Wikipedia
only gets "About 490,000 results
The ratio is >1000:1
As a result of, I think, a misguided focus on disambiguation I think that Wikipedia regularly slips into WP:BUREAUCRACY often neglecting the role of a WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA to provide valuable WP:DESCRIPTION.
The result, IMO, is that editors can often favour emphasis on dissection rather than on presentation of subject descriptions.
For reference please refer to Web navigation and any relevant content at Disambiguation (disambiguation).
In the current state of the " WP:Disambiguation" page there are only 17 instances of content containing "descri" and I think that, to an extent, we can miss the point. I suggest a refocus of this content and would encourage editors to put some thought into this."
Sounds like fanaticism" from the other editor yet he still persisted in what seemed to me to be deliberate sabotage of the thread.
Okay, I have just investigated, and I believe you may be taking that fanaticism thing somewhat out of context. The editor who commented about fanaticism also said this: "Of course, bd2412, you are not a fanatic. You are a prolificly-editing disambiguation expert who always says sensible things. But 'our disambiguation pages be as concisely written as possible' is something to choke on, it is something that a fanatic may pick up out of context and run mad with." Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Precision is not the issue here and I think that "clarification" deserves a mention."
This sounds like something that has less to do with the content of disambiguation pages than with the desire of some editors to move titles like George Washington to George Washington (planter, American Revolutionary War general, and President of the United States born February 22, 1732) or something like that. ..."
We could just as absurdly move Steve Henson (politician) to Steve Henson (Democratic member of the Georgia Senate born March 30, 1959 in Indianapolis, Indiana).".
I think that "clarification" deserves a mention."
This kind of tactic of sending arguments, imo, overboard and into the absurd is not something I can respect whoever the arguments are addressed to." Please can we leave it at that? I mistakenly gave respect. I rectified the situation. Greg Kaye 17:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
... You are a prolificly-editing disambiguation expert ..." also presented the comparably ridiculous and I think scaremongering example, in the very same edit, of:
I think that "clarification" deserves a mention"? Greg Kaye 13:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that "clarification" deserves a mention". If it wasn't "deliberate sabotage", what was it? Greg Kaye 17:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Following the closure of a recent RfC you participated in, I have started an RfC on the separate but related issue of commas after Jr. and Sr.. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr. and feel free to comment there. Thanks! — sroc 💬 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I wish you had started a discussion before launching that particular RM with a title very few will support. I really think what we need there is a multiple choice survey made up of a list of titles, including the current one, so that participants can rank them all against each other. I tried to that a year or so ago [18], but it was too soon after another RM, and was immediately closed. Now this RM will just prevent anyone from starting another RM. And now it's probably too late to withdraw. To get to a stable title that has consensus support, we need a variant of what I created. Next time... -- В²C ☎ 17:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
FYI, I've reorganized List of books by or about Hillary Rodham Clinton a bit. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Greg, do you have any views on the proposed merger of Other Black? I ask because not many editors have contributed to the discussion, and I saw that you moved Other White earlier today. Cordless Larry ( talk) 15:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Antisemitism. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr ( talk) 16:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Grekaye, I gave a rather short answer on the related board regarding experts and wanted to clarify what I meant. The issue of interpreting DSM and ICD requires some training in order to be able to do it competently. I did a pilot systematic review a few years ago on long term efficacy of ADHD medication. I had to consult with a psychiatrist when it came to interpreting DSM-VI and ICD-10 so I know it can be tricky. This stuff is way over my head so I am afraid I will not be able to contribute much. It seems you have raised the issue on a more appropriate board and hopefully it will provide some direction for the article. Good luck. Mbcap ( talk) 20:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!
Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!
If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.
Thanks, and happy editing!
Note about this RfC where you !voted. I tweaked the statement to make it more clear that it is about eating GM food and health. I'm notifying each person who !voted, in case that matters to you. Sorry for the trouble. Jytdog ( talk) 21:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
GregKaye:
I noticed that the ANI that I opened was closed with the sentence: "Non admin closure." Do non-admins have the authority to close those reports? Who is in charge around here? Most web sites have clear lines of authority, but this place seems like anarchy where anyone with an agenda and the time to pursue it can override common sense.
I am annoyed by the reason for the closure. How can "refusing to provide a good-faith explanation for [a] reversion" be described as a "content dispute"? Other people, not I, raised the content issues. I did not even use the terms "GMO" or "GM food" in my report (except in quoting the source). It was Jytdog that started the ad hominem attacks. Does Wikipedia ever enforce its WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and WP:CIVIL policies? After this experience of hours of wasted time trying to negotiate with someone who refuses to consider any viewpoint but his own and being the victim of a campaign of character assassination, I doubt I will ever spend any time in the future improving Wikipedia in my areas of expertise. Why tolerate the abuse and wasted time for no compensation? At least I no longer feel guilty about always taking from Wikipedia without ever giving back.
Incidentally, while I am flattered that you think I have a "high level of wiki knowhow," please note that other users in the WHO citation thread first raised the WP:SYNTH and WP:RS/AC issues. As to talk page quoting, that is explained in the instructions for submitting an ANI issue. GrayDuck156 ( talk) 00:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Who is in charge around here?" Lol, if I had any previous doubts, this proves to me that you are newish to the wiki. (I am taken my previous doubts as a compliment regarding competence). Everyone and no-one is my interpretation and, despite what WP:NOT says, I think that (in a very positive sense) Wikipedia is an experiment (actually a fairly effective practice) in Anarchy. This, in itself, is not a criticism as leaderless consensus based leadership can work.
This is a content dispute that belongs on the article talk page metastasizing into a pointless all-out brawl". I certainly agree that there was a content dispute but also agreed with you that WP:DISRUPTSIGNS
that (Jytdog has) violated: "A disruptive editor is an editor who...repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits..."" I find the interpretation "brawl" to be quite demeaning. To my mind, if anything editors have simply wanted to ensure the application of clear and direct talk page conversation and I do not see that this has been supported in ANI.
right great wrongs" but no one in any way presented a defence for Jytdog's disruptive behaviour.
Does Wikipedia ever enforce its WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and WP:CIVIL policies?" Regularly and action taken is decided on a case by case basis. Often when an editor has engaged in disruptive behaviour there will at least be comment on this behaviour in the close. However, in my view, ANI often has nothing to do with incident resolution but adopts a remit that is more focussed on application of sanctions. I believe that this lack of attention on reconciliation and behaviour rectification is a major cause of falling editor numbers in Wikipedia.
I am unblocked and more than ready to participate in any activity that you initiate that will provide the right of reply for future editors who may find themselves in the exact situation that I found myself in during my two ANIs. Also, I insist that you ping me if you find a similar situation occurring on ANI where an editor has not had a chance to reply or is blocked and can't reply and/or is subjected to unnecessary name-calling or other uncivil behavior. Best Regards, Bfpage | leave a message 13:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
about this. Bfpage | leave a message 21:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The name change discussion was getting to be quite confusing as to who supported what, so I revamped the format and I'm asking all editors who already voted to return and recast their votes under the new format. [19] Thanks, BMK ( talk) 12:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much, that was really sweet of you. :D Big hug from Spain to you! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 19:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Greg, I wanted to make sure we had one point clear before I respond at AN/I (if I even do). Can you tell me where you were going with WP:censor there? StevenJ81 ( talk) 20:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Don't Stop Believin'!! Pandeist ( talk) 05:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC) |
Whenever anybody tries to change things, there will be those who scoff. "Oh, it's all been tried before; oh it'll never work." But what have they done? What change have they sought? So you keep right on keep in' on. Sometimes to try is victory in itself. And sometimes, victory is. Blessings!! Pandeist ( talk) 05:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Oriya_language#Requested_move_17_June_2015. Thanks. Cpt.a.haddock ( talk) 15:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Do not spread lies. RGloucester — ☎ 15:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
If you believe the deletion of content referring to controversy over United Synagogue's political positions is unwarranted, you should raise those concerns on the talk page of the article, and not on the talk page of a blocked user. At Talk:United_Synagogue#Controversy, I invited other editors to discuss the deletion. You are still welcome to comment there. Regards, -- Ravpapa ( talk) 12:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Dear User,
As you are one of the contributors to Tunisian Arabic. You are kindly asked to review the part about Domains of Use and adjust it directly or through comments in the talk page of Tunisian Arabic.
Yours Sincerely,
-- Csisc ( talk) 13:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello Greg. Your recent edit [20] is most welcome. You never need to say please twice or indeed once. You are my colleague and I will always attempt to give an answer to points that you raise. I have decided to take the weekend off to reflect on some issues. Hopefully tomorrow I will comment. Happy editing. Mbcap ( talk) 10:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
jumping from one argument to another when it suits". You order me to answer you recent question and, even though my question was first asked in my 05:07, 18 July 2015 talk page edit, you do not give an answer. Seriously, who has the own issues here? You now criticise that I quoted both times in which I asked "
Please". I asked a simple question.
Serial POV pusher" etc., etc., etc., without substantiation. If you can't substantiate please consider striking. Take a look at WP:ASPERSIONS. I do not think that this is what Wikipedia editing is meant to be about. Greg Kaye 12:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia in the Persian language (another language widely spoken among Arabic communities)"? If you did you would have also seen the reply dated 17:08, 18 July 2015 in which you were also pinged and in which I said: "
Mbcap Fair enough yet the article Arabs indicates the presence of 1,600,000 Arabs living in Iran indicating about a fiftieth of the population. Arabs are a significant minority in just this one Persian speaking country and I presume that some of them speak Persian." As you realize Iran is a predominantly Islamic country which is really the important issue in regard to the thread in question. If this is your evidence of me being a POV pusher then your evidence is incredibly poor and, if you had seen my response, disingenuous. Did you see my response? Greg Kaye 20:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes I read your comment and you simply can not arrive at the said conclusion of, "widely spoken among Arabic communities", from the fact that 1.6 million Arabs live in Iran. My evidence for you being a POV pusher is from the way you pushed the label extremist and the way you hinder any effort to attain a policy congruent article title. Mbcap ( talk) 22:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough ...". You realize that the discussion here is on on Islamic State and Islam. If anything my mention of Arabs as an ethnicity was an irrelevance. Since your 08:57, 20 July 2015 edit here and since your re logging on to edit Wikipedia without responding to anything I have said (in my 20:17, 22 July 2015 edit on the article talk page), "
Mbcap I guess that the main issue that I see here for me is Persian speaking countries like Iran are predominantly Islamic. On this basis I think that people from language groups such as Persian can be referenced to a give good indication of the reaction to the group from communities that have high rate of connection and understanding of Islam." This was the stronger point that I should have made on the first occasion. Again I responded "
Fair enough" when you made your correction in regard to ethnicity (which came, as it did, in a discussion more closely related to religion.
This is not an invitation sprawl this discussion and if you want to cite something do it, as you should have done, adjacent to the accusations." What you certainly should not do is make something out of nothing in regard to a mistaken reference to ethnicity which, when corrected, the other party had openly responded "
Fair enough". What is not fair is that you quote my original statement out of context of my honest response. You are making something out of nothing.
On seven occasions at talk:ISIL you have accused me of or otherwise insinuated a practice of conflation and, on overlapping occasions, of the practice of WP:SOAPBOX. ... You order me to answer you recent question and, even though my question was first asked in my 05:07, 18 July 2015 talk page edit, you do not give an answer," and, to this, you responded "
You can expect from me that I will think about what you have said and I will reply in due course." What I do not think is any where near "fair enough" in your actions is that you make uncited accusation, bark orders in relation to answering your belated question, then (in response to my mentioned 11:16 edit) you say "
You can expect from me that I will think about what you have said and I will reply in due course" and yet, after four occasions of my asking my question in relation to your repeated accusation, you still do not answer. Instead all you do is engage in this "
catastrophic waste of ... time" sideshow on ethnicity. Greg Kaye 01:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
FYI, it's " toe the line", not "tow the line" (or in the relevant case, not "line-towing"). Regards! VQuakr ( talk) 08:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I recently started a move request. -- George Ho ( talk) 05:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. As someone who has shown some interest in articles about British immigration policies, I wondered if you might like to comment on the FAC discussion for Gateway Protection Programme? A previous discussion was archived due to a lack of participation, and I am keen to avoid the same happening again. Any thoughts you have on the article would be much appreciated. Cordless Larry ( talk) 11:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
...not to go WP:3RR on WP:AT -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 05:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed you are almost single-handedly trying to keep the discussion on track. Keep up the good work! I hope it bears fruit ... ~ P-123 ( talk) 16:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
non template related signature: Greg Kaye 07:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
this is related to a proposal at: Template talk:You've got mail#RfC: Proposal that the template contain an auto signature, time reference, automatic note placed in edit summary or similar.
Wikipedia needs transparency Greg Kaye 17:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Technophant ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see WP:NAVBOX. It is not a good idea to add this template to every Green politician in the world. St Anselm ( talk) 18:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I thought that it might be interesting for you to see this? Mhhossein ( talk) 10:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, Greg, had to put the record straight. :) I don't take exception to what you said about me, though. ~ P-123 ( talk) 19:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
At
User talk:Worldedixor#Taking stock I presented "My conjecture that this "RfC/U" was not so much written as a request for comment but as a non-neutral statement of condemnation coupled with request for agreement
" and, as best I could, presented a "clarification of actual wrong doing by Worldedixor and references to the overstatement of various cases
". Consider the way that it was written.
Worldedixor's treatment subsequently (of this allegedly non-neutral RfC that was primarily compiled by Technophant) included the content at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Worldedixor#Questions to Certifying users from Worldedixor within which Technophant repeatedly did not address questions raised.
Now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Response to Technophant's Request for closure another editor adds:
"By failing to respond to other editors' comments about you right now, in this very AN, including mine above, you demonstrate that
User:GregKaye is right when he says that you repeatedly refuse to answer direct questions and deal with problems brought to your attention. You haven't even responded to comments above or even tried to defend yourself. Serious charges against you have been made above, with diffs and quotes, but you show no evidence that you have even read them.
"
In this context how is it to his credit that "he is putting up a fight
"?
Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks clearly presents approaches that may effectively be taken in situations like this.
I certainly agree that you were subject to harsh treatment that seemed to me to be devoid of any empathy following AN/I and, despite my also being banned, I remember being the only editor to raise my voice at this.
Since then I have also unsuccessfully raised objection regarding actions at admin noticeboards that do not let accused parties respond including at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive272#Kangaroo court.
The problem as has been interpreted regarding Technophant however is that he is not taking opportunity to respond. What aspects of editors' treatment of Technophant do you think is harsh?
Greg Kaye 07:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I don't really mind these hatnotes, but the small print "navigation page" is likely going to cause some consternation because that's not what the pages are called (they are disambiguation pages), and this seems to be a non-standard way to present such pages anyway. I'd recommend dropping the small print. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Its either saying:
or saying:
At my reading the first one makes more clear sense while the last one most directly says something along the lines of "go and speak to John Smith about other people called John Smith". Greg Kaye 20:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Normally, it's For other people named John Smith, see John Smith. Keep it simple. There's likely a template for this as well. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Here you go:
This uses {{ other people}}. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Since you have participated in numerous such discussions, the above topic may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Since you are contributing to the article and you seem to be an impartial editor, I'd like to know your opinion about this? Thanks-- Shazaami ( talk) 04:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Since you have been a major participant in disambiguation topics, the above discussion, which deals with redirects flowing to dab pages, may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I see you're adding non-standard hatnotes to a lot of articles. While I applaud your thoroughness, you really need to get consensus on this format. (I undid one, William Ainsworth (politician), because we generally don't need hatnotes on pages that are already disambiguated, per WP:NAMB.) We have the templates for a reason, because they are the agreed-upon wording. By all means make the case for a change, but the discussion needs to be had.
If you have already got consensus for this, please ignore the above and point me in the right direction. :) Frickeg ( talk) 13:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I went to your userpage after your edit on Boys Don't Cry (film) and I just wanted to say that I love your userboxes and the quotes on your talk page! It's nice to see such a great ally. :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214) talk to me! see my work 16:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Really, did you now just go WP:4RR at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation? The guidance on how to fight a close you don't agree with is at Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures as I already pointed out. You know I'm right with the close, you "failed to convince anyone" in two months and a half time, so its time for this to end. You had ample time and opportunity to argue your insights. It didn't work out, and by now enough time and effort has gone into it. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 04:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Greg. As somewhat of an expert on ethnic group article naming, I wondered if you have a view on the appropriate title of the Bulgarian Turks article? It's being discussed [Talk:Bulgarian_Turks#Article_title_and_regions_with_significant_populations|here]]. Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I may have mentioned once before, my admiration for your fastidiousness when facing buffeting winds of opposing opinions. Take heart that your good work is appreciated, my brother!! Pandeist ( talk) 18:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Greg. Has there been any discussion about this that I can read? Whilst a useful page, I'm not convinced that's the right place for it (c.f. other nation's politicians, i.e. Barack Obama, where it appears in the more usual Ex Links) and, if it is, they certainly need to be formatted in a better manner than raw urls. Cheers, Bromley86 ( talk) 05:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.
Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 02:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Does Illegal immigration in Japan need to its title to be changed. Dwanyewest ( talk) 22:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Have a good Guido Fawkes night! You must be busy. ~ P-123 ( talk) 10:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing— Dry lightning —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Pierre cb ( talk) 05:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Pierre cb ( talk) 05:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Greg, I noticed closing up Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_24#European_Parliament_constituencies that you never tagged a single category with the listing. That is a CFD requirement as it also notifies the WikiProject about it. It seems like there was some consensus supporting your proposal but the discussion was too unclear from the start. May I suggest that you work out the proposal first, including the naming convention, at somewhere like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom before bringing it up at CFD again? CFD isn't watched by a lot and really won't be watched by anyone if you don't tag the categories so somewhere where people at least understand the system may help. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
(
Charles R. Knight, 1922)
|
GregKaye, I wish you and those dear to you golden days of love and joy in a Happy New Year 2016! Best regards, Me-123567-Me ( talk) 23:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC) Pass on! Send this greeting by adding
{{
subst:
User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages. |
(Unknown artist,
Norway, 1916)
|
Category:Groups not accepted as states claimed to be Islamic states, which you created, has been nominated for upmerging. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
So that's where you've been! Good for you. He's one to watch, isn't he? ~ P-123 ( talk) 02:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Greg. I was going to close this RFC. But I have a question, are you going to add a source to the statement? There doesnt seem to be one on the page where the replacement was done. The reason I ask is the change makes a claim (Prejudice remains) that I cant seem to find in the body, or really any mention of prejudice to show it is sourced. I am just going to box up the RFC because it looks like a WP:SNOW and the change has been made, I would rather not add a citation needed tag to the lede. Thanks AlbinoFerret 05:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, it's Discuss-Dubious and I need help or feedback about fixing Islamic view of the Christian Bible. I started by respelling a word and adding an online version of a published book by blue-linked apologist John Wijngaards making a claim that we allow in our tahrif article. I thought it would be good to add other links, but later realized it was a bad idea because they weren't by blue-linked individuals. [21] I then tried to rewrite the lead in a more "external", third-party tone because I felt it was too first-party. [22] I want to use this in the article, but I'm worried I will slant the article again.
Will you take a look at it? I see that you work in the topic area sometimes. Discuss-Dubious ( t/ c) 05:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of " On a Night Like This", " Do It like a Dude", &c., questions in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 15:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Category:Designated terrorist organizations associated with Islam, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. AusLondonder ( talk) 22:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
As a past contributor, you are invited to participate in the third annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs through the month of June. The purpose of the campaign is to create and improve content related to LGBT culture and history. How can you help?
Looking for topics? The Tasks page, which you are welcome to update, offers some ideas and wanted articles.
This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. The group's mission is to develop LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. Visit the affiliate's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's talk page.
Thanks, and happy editing! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I've been working on standardizing hatnotes, and I noticed a series of pages with manual hatnotes that you inserted in edits like this one. My standardization edits tend to look like this. In future, if adding hatnotes, please use the standard templates like {{ other people}}. If you absolutely need custom phrasing, please use {{ hatnote}}. In particular, the manual hatnotes are bad semantically and cause problems with Hovercards and other tools that pull from article leads. Thanks, {{ Nihiltres | talk | edits}} 16:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Good evening. You are invited to participate in the move discussion on Talk:Kylie, because you previously commented in a previous RM on the same subject. Thank you, Calidum ¤ 03:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, GregKaye. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Greg, greetings and all best wishes for 2017! Hope all goes well with you. P-123 ( talk) 11:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Really appreciated. Hope things are going well. Greg Kaye 11:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, GregKaye! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a new WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 18:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to reach out to you regarding a title change discussion in Joaquín Guzmán's talk page. You were involved in a previous change there in 2015. I'd love to read your input. Thank you! ComputerJA ( ☎ • ✎) 15:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects throughout the month of June as part of the fourth annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign. Feel free to add new and expanded content on the project's Results page. Happy editing! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 14:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
WikiLGBT is on Twitter! | |
---|---|
|
Template:Admin talk page banner has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, GregKaye. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Greg, I have been reading your RM at Talk:Belizeans from three years ago. It felt like a strong consensus, but it doesn’t appear to have fixed the mass confusion in most other ethnic group articles (see Category:High-importance Ethnic groups articles). Do you have any advice on how best to proceed with this? Onceinawhile ( talk) 15:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I never got around to thanking you a couple of years ago for coming to my aid during some kind of discussion related to a block (I think). Anyway, I've been looking through some professional wrestling topics and find the lack of references to be shocking. I saw your name somewhere in the talk pages and was hoping you could bring me up to speed on this topic. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 14:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Re Category:Media presentation of Islamic terrorism, please see proposed rename at the foot of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 2. – Fayenatic London 22:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, GregKaye. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, there is an RM discussion you may be interested in since you have participated in the past:
/info/en/?search=Talk:Chairman#Requested_move_22_March_2019
Any input would be appreciated. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 03:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Syria/Syrian Civil War task force. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Syria/Syrian Civil War task force redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. PBS ( talk) 10:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, since you were involved in previous naming discussions, would you like to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers#Article titles for rivers in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus? Markussep Talk 08:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Category:Persecution of homosexuals in Islam has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ★Trekker ( talk) 17:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have expressed views relating to overpopulation as a problem until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.
Nsk92 ( talk) 17:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Template:User supports peace in the Middle East, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Unused Userboxes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template:User supports peace in the Middle East during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 23:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I have a question. Is University Park any longer a CDP? As far as I can see, there is no Census data for 2020. Has the place merged with another one for Census purposes? Thank you in advance for your reply. Regards, Dionysos1988 ( talk) 13:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of UK number 1 men's tennis players until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.
Bonoahx ( talk) 16:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of UK number 1 men's tennis players (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.
ForzaUV ( talk) 18:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of organisations campaigning for population stabilisation, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of organisations campaigning for population stabilisation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot ( talk) 01:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the edit of Eve Barlow. I suspect it may be moved to an Afd debate, though I believe she passes WP:GNG and particularly WP:AUTHOR. In the case that it does, would you be able to weigh in and share your honest opinion? Thank you in advance. (It would be worth noting, though its sad that I have to, but I have zero connection to the subject. I am trying to create a listing of notable journalist who do not yet have a wikipedia article). PaulPachad ( talk) 13:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I've removed part of your comment on that article's talk page (see Talk:Amber_Heard#How_to_really_help_Amber). Talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article, not getting involved in the lives of their subjects. 22:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I got a notification that you brought up my username on the page Talk:Amber Heard, for that quickly-removed section "How to really help Amber." In the future, don't involve me in anything like that ever again. Thank you. Afddiary ( talk) 03:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi GregKaye. I hope you are well. I'm doing a series on Journalists and I created one for Jessica Abo. /info/en/?search=Jessica_Abo It is now in an AfD debate. In my opinion its mistaken but I'm biased. Would you be able to weigh in to the discussion and share your honest opinion? Thank you so much in advance. PaulPachad ( talk) 21:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Insert: changing title from == Edit warring on the Depp v. Heard page == after accuser's complete failure to present evidence that I "appear to be engaged in an edit war". Greg Kaye 09:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
I know it's hard. But I really think you need to slow down a bit on this topic Greg. I know you think you are right but try listening to what all the other editors are telling you. Maybe edit some other topics for a while and come back after a pause. It's hard to edit those contentious pages if you don't have a lot of experience with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You don't have to do it all by yourself. Trust that the process of Wikipedia will produce a neutral point of view for this article. If you are trying too hard to impose a certain point of view you are probably the one suffering from some kind of bias. {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 16:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
"appear to be engaged in an edit war". Explain how! Otherwise the only thing apparent is your WP:Harrassment. Greg Kaye 22:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
"Nothing more than that"?
The purpose of an article's WP:Talk page ... is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article ..."
"currently appear to be engaged in an edit war"with no justification. I base my editing on the WP:Rules and, on this point, several editors are also disputing with you. Greg Kaye 11:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Greg, regarding primary versus secondary. This opinion piece by Fran Winston, it would be a primary source on a hypothetical article on Fran Winston, but it is a secondary source on Depp v Heard. Meanwhile, this news article by Analisa Novak would be a primary source for a hypothetical article on Analisa Novak, but it is a secondary source for Depp v Heard. Even our news sources are simply primary sources for the author’s determination of facts, if you want to look at it in this way. starship .paint ( exalt) 01:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". The article is editorially titled to read Amber Heard's lawyer reveals what actress said right after verdict. The CBS journalist reports on content not originating from her and acts as a source for Bredehoft's statement on
"One of the first things she said when she came back from the verdict ..."Wikipedia can certainly use the Novak article to report on or reflect things like that statement but that's as far as we go.
"If Alice writes down an idea, and Bob simply quotes her work, and Chris refers to Bob's quotation, and Daisy cites Chris, and so forth, you very likely have a string of primary sources, rather than one primary, one secondary, one tertiary,..."Greg Kaye 11:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion.From this, it is obvious that opinion pieces, are ... well, allowed. Oh, and I didn't know where to put it, but my activity level on-wiki has already started to drop as of recently. starship .paint ( exalt) 12:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
author's own thinkingand the ruling against opinion". As things are, news is considered typically primary material and opinion in news as primary opinion. I'm not sure if anyone has a handle on where the border of where primary opinion becomes secondary opinion. I think it's just that news is considered primary. Greg Kaye 20:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 03:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
"incorrect inference using wp:or/ wp:synth". With people that persisted with unfounded accusation, you've greenlit continued wp:crystal based assertions. Greg Kaye 12:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
"incorrect inference using wp:or/ wp:synth"? You say,
"you've had your shot". I didn't want a shot. I didn't want any of this, on repeat with nothing retracted. This isn't a cage ring and I didn't want to get dragged in. I wanted to get on with dealing, to the best of my ability, to deal with things like balance and mos:instruct abuses. I can't even confront an accuser who misrepresents and who addresses others rather than me directly. Its shattering. I'd made a bid for disarmament. How did your intervention help? Greg Kaye 15:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Greg, (1) regardless of whether you wanted a shot or not, you've already had your shot at WP:ANI, you've already confronted Changing at WP:ANI, unless you're referring to someone else. (2) I note that your claim of a mix-up between the "UK" and the "US" at 13:01, 16 June is the second explanation. The first explanation on 07:06, 13 June stated: My edit to "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK" gave accurate reference to article content while linking to the newly formed Differences between the US and the UK trials section. You have edited back to edit of Starship.paint of which I also approved. One of the advantages of my edit is that it linked to content that I developed to include the topic of freedom of speech as referenced in the article. Another advantage of the text at my edit was that it gave easy flow: 'Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK. Heard's spokesperson and lawyer said she intends to appeal the decision. When asked about a possible settlement, Depp's lawyer referenced the trial to say, "this was never about money."' I think this a more constructive way to present article content.
There are two reasons why (2) is concerning. (2a) If I purely WP:AGF, then your claim of a mix-up between the "UK" and the "US" is correct, which means that at 07:06, 13 June you either hadn't realised the mix-up despite nearly 800 words of protest from other editors and would take another 3+ days to actually realise it, or that you realised the mistake but didn't even mention it in your 500+ words reply on 07:06, 13 June. Either way, this calls into question your competence.
(2b) If I actually analyse the situation, I don't believe that there was a mix-up. You wrote and linked to "Differences between the US and the UK trials". [25] Every difference you wrote favoured Depp and not Heard (jury trial, divorce money, Heard defendant, new witnesses, anti-SLAPP, learning from previous trial). That section has no mention that legal experts considered the US trial harder to win. If you were directly linking a lede sentence that the US trial was harder to win to a body section that suggests that the US trial was easier to win.... this also calls into question your competence.
(3) Even if I were to ignore all misrepresentations, you still made mistakes. Thus, you are in a hole, Greg. Stop digging, it is a strategic mistake. You’re risking sanctions every day that the ANI thread remains open. Same thing with Changing’s talk page, let it go. starship .paint ( exalt) 02:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
"fire", and with a desire to add some sort of rebuttal on a variety of issues while other editor comments flooded in. Best I can say is that I'd used the content of a <ref> reference within content that I developed to include the topic of freedom of speech which I added into the article. The citation that I brought into the differences section [27] both allowed addition of the freedom of speech content and indicated that
"Mr Depp had a weaker chance of winning than he did in the UK". As far as content is concerned, I'd intended to go with that.
GregKayethree times in the same post that presented capitalised reference to " WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH". I'd certainly be delighted if we can all
"let it go"and would like to ensure this can happen.
"If I actually analyse the situation, I don't believe that there was a mix-up.""I ... believe that there was a mix-up" - but can't go much further than that. I gave the best analysis I could. I also took your advice and first fought the fire in the sub thread below. I still think I have a right to reply and I tried my best. If you have any advice on how to convey the content of my reply more effectively I'd gratefully receive it. I value our
"mutually beneficial"discussions on issues like understandings of rules... You are the only editor here who's opinion I internally care about. Greg Kaye 16:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
"how Wikipedia treats such delicate subjects"such as in your wanting to push "wife beater" references by The Sun despite it barely playing a role in the Nicol judgement and wanting to spell out Darvo...? I don't think I'm the one to
"answer every message at all costs."[32] Greg Kaye 12:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
"wife beater"in introduction to
"the great majority of alleged assaults of Ms Heard by Mr Depp have been proved to the civil standard". "Beaten" is the kind of description that can be used with "left for dead" or "to a pulp" etc. which was not the level of the
"alleged assaults"involved.
"it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."I also appreciate you've mentioned some primary vehicles using the reference. I don't see it as being representative of the trial in question but, yes, it can fit in with rules in certain contexts. Perhaps I've been overly concerned about
"delicate subjects". Greg Kaye 15:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
It becomes a problem when we present "wife beater" in introduction to "the great majority of alleged assaults of Ms Heard by Mr Depp have been proved to the civil standard".- disagree because this is exactly the UK judge's ruling ("wife beater" came extremely early in his ruling document and is the crux of the case). MacMillian Dictionary: "wife-beater" is a man who regularly hits his wife. Collins Dictionary: "wife-beater" is a person who hits his or her wife. No mention of beaten to a pulp or left for dead. starship .paint ( exalt) 01:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
"wife beater" came extremely early in his ruling documentbut this was in explaining that the online claim appeared briefly as per:
From about 7.58am on 28th April 2018 the headline of the website article was changed....
"Wife beater"is a loaded, I'd say pejorative term may certainly explain why tabloid The Sun used it but can also explain why, even they, rapidly realised the need to drop it's sensationalist use.
"crux of the case"could refer to any potentially decisive point but "wife beater" specifically does not appear again, other than in footnotes, in the Nicol judgement.
"delicate subjects"?
"Biographies of living persons (" BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy."and yet the lede of the Depp v. Heard article makes introduction to actual legal issues with a tabloid reference from The Sun. WP:BLPBALANCE says,
"Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone."
"I have never, never wanted to be seen as a victim".
In a separate libel trial, Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd in July 2020, the presiding judge concluded that "the great majority of alleged assaults of Ms Heard by Mr Depp have been proved to the civil standard". What's wrong with that as an intro to the legalities of Depp v. Heard? Greg Kaye 10:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
"real life business"presented in a
"succinct way", under the topic is the Depp v. Heard trial, its lead had already had presented issues extensively:
"The actors, who married in February 2015, divorced after Heard claimed in May 2016 that Depp had abused her physically, which he denied. In a separate libel trial, Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd in July 2020, the presiding judge concluded that "the great majority of alleged assaults of Ms Heard by Mr Depp have been proved to the civil standard. Several legal experts suggested that Depp had a smaller chance of winning in the US trial compared to the UK trial", (which had already ignored a wider sequential context within which, "The actors,... divorced after Heard claimed in May 2016 that Depp had abused her physically..." came after Depp's evidenced intent to divorce Heard).
"Sensationalist? Yes"which presents a rules based contention when WP:BLP says
"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively"and that
"it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist".
"flawed"yet we similarly find that
"wife beater"also
"only appears in a small minority of news article titles relating to"Depp "The Sun".
“alleged assaults” is absolutely fine as well. Remarkably, even The Sun found
“wife beater”either to be non representative of the significantly time spaced alleged incidents or The Sun thought it too sensationalist. Greg Kaye 06:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 00:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
"welcome to discuss them"reference made and suggest this as an ideal for general practice on any issues arising. I look forward to the development of materials that give fair consideration to issues such as WP:Due/ WP:Balance as well as the concept that "the same rules need to apply to all" in regard to rules such as WP:OR and WP:Coatrack. Greg Kaye 08:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Recently there have been some IP user contributions on the 1st and 4th July, 2022 (that have included talk page comments) with the IP potentially being based in Lyme Regis, Exeter or London. [33] If you find any comments by a non-registered/less-than-well established user, consider deleting. If this is an editor who also has an established account, please login. Greg Kaye 14:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Are you aware of this rule? You have made at least 1 2 3 4 reverts on the Depp v. Heard page... why are you doing this Greg? Please self revert and discuss on the talk page if you really want that content to be included. I've explained my objections to that content in detail in the edit summaries. {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 22:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
"Editors may propose a change to current consensus". Absolutely, even after our previously strong and policy based consensus was achieved, your appropriate action would be to have left it to talk page discussion. Greg Kaye 12:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.{{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 16:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
"challenging it is very very easy"then the place that you might attempt this would be within talk page discussion. The consensus is based on WP:NPOV WP:BALANCE. There's nothing
"contentious"in a juror saying that the jurors fulfilled the jobs of jurors, and yet there' plenty that's comparatively contentious in people who don't know the jurors speculating that they didn't do their jobs. As to the material itself, it's excellently
"sourced"as based on strong WP:RS. Editors have advocated, by consensus, for its inclusion and other editors have added to or replaced sections of the content. If there's a debate on the content, you know where to hold it. We're done here. Greg Kaye 17:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Insert result: Result: Blocked, along with Gtoffoletto, for 24 hours. Comment: I think it's a bit harsh seeing that I hadn't even broken WP:BRD but was reverting persistent attempts to remove comments of a juror from an article about a jury trial. Greg Kaye 17:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:GregKaye reported by User:VQuakr (Result: ). Thank you. VQuakr ( talk) 18:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Daniel Case (
talk) 22:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Contexts:
(
Daniel Case, certainly, genuine thanks to you for extending the conclusion to,
... Blocked, along with Gtoffoletto, for 24 hours. I'm also grateful for the intervention of (historically involved Depp v. Heard) editor Homeostasis07, who provided some further context for the discussion. Appreciation to for in-discussion advice given by VQuakr which, as I noted, applies to both sides).
Gtoffoletto (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log),
Gtoffoletto edits to Depp v. Heard
GregKaye (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log),
GregKaye edits to Depp v. Heard
In relation to an article on the topic of a
jury trial, Gtoffoletto was unilaterally and repeatedly removing a section of content on
#Comments by juror despite policy based support
having been given for inclusion of this content on the article's talk page. Since my final
restitution of the content, substantial additions have been made by two editors
[34]
[35] to the Comments by juror section further demonstrating a justified support for the content that I'd previously understood to exist.
As part of a broader context, Gtoffoletto had presented justifications for the exclusion of material on the basis of
an essay
[36]
[37]
[38] and yet, even though the essay on
WP:BRD had been taken as the standard in discussion at
Talk:Depp v. Heard, suddenly Gtoffoletto adopted a sequence of repeated removals of the juror content. No comment regarding 3RR was made in edit summaries made and yet, after that limit was superseded, Gtoffoletto rapidly began the above
WP:3RR thread. He also chose this time to
post at
WP:BLPN and, among issues, I suspect that a timed attempt at
WP:Gaming the system had been involved. This said, I appreciate we'd both violated the
three-revert rule. It's been a learning experience.
Greg
Kaye 08:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Writing this was a grave misjudgment on your part. "I'll not harass you if you edit the way I feel you should" is such a gross take. Combined with your continued edit warring post-block, ( [39] and [40]) I highly doubt you'd avoid a topic ban or one-way iban if it came up for discussion at ANI right now. Please reflect on whether you have the patience and restraint to keep editing in this subject area or the decision will soon be made for you. VQuakr ( talk) 22:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
"., if you make your off-talk page actions and talk page contents give no cause for reasonable response, that as ever should be fine". What would you do if another editor got as far as breaking policy or if editors were making refutable comments about you on their talk pages? Regarding
"edit warring", I've not broken WP:BRD. Regarding your first in parenthesis link, that followed a revert that stood for nine hours before I effectively self reverted. Greg Kaye 04:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
"try again on a reply that only mentions your own behavior"but, when another editor get's blocked for edit warring, they respond by raising distorted and out of context comments about me despite, as far as I have seen, their behavior being worse. In a further example, if an editor makes claim on a talk page that you have edit warred when you hadn't even broken brd while they had, is it fair to set the record straight. Take a read of that claims of "misconduct" thread. Another editor raised the issue of boomerang with substantial editor support subsequently weighing in on issues I mentioned and even the canvassed editors being readily refuted. If editors present distorted or out of context depictions of others, how is it not fair to present truth directly in response? Greg Kaye 10:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi gregKaye, On Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd an editor also active on Depp v Heard is adamant on using the original title. They reverted several edits from multiple editors and seems to get away with doing so. I reverted their edit once. I even got a message saying I'm edit warring, from another person which immediately got deleted by this same person, who then reverted my revert. Maybe this is of interest to you. Thanks anyway for your relentless efforts of keeping these articles truthful, balanced and fair. Kind regards, AknolIikiW ( talk) 08:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks :-) AknolIikiW ( talk) 15:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Optimum population, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optimum population until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot ( talk) 01:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Category:Human rights under the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Human rights under territory-controlling groups indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 01:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Category:Advocates of women's reproductive rights has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason ( talk) 00:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)