User talk:P-123: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:37, 4 November 2014 editP-123 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users13,841 edits →Timeline 2 ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:48, 4 November 2014 edit undoP-123 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users13,841 edits →Lead Next edit →
Line 84:		Line 84:
	Re: "Comments removed by agreement" and "(edit conflict)" I don't mind which wording was used. My prose often lack the current lucidness of the text and am happy to leave further changes to you. I'll also add a note for ] to again give thanks (sounding religious again) for support and that I have been more than happy with the minimal and open tinkering with and correcting of my texts by P123ct1. There is a high level of trust here. I have recently un-collapsed a text, changed titles and things like that. ] ] 10:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)		Re: "Comments removed by agreement" and "(edit conflict)" I don't mind which wording was used. My prose often lack the current lucidness of the text and am happy to leave further changes to you. I'll also add a note for ] to again give thanks (sounding religious again) for support and that I have been more than happy with the minimal and open tinkering with and correcting of my texts by P123ct1. There is a high level of trust here. I have recently un-collapsed a text, changed titles and things like that. ] ] 10:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
	:]: When have I altered your text apart from this time, Greg? I can remember another time in a note directing readers to another discussion, but I have never changed your comments elsewhere, and I have certainly never changed anyone else's. This was a big exception, to clean up the confusion we had in our exchange in that thread, and it was done with your agreement. Please get back to me on this. ~ ] (]) 12:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)		:]: When have I altered your text apart from this time, Greg? I can remember another time in a note directing readers to another discussion, but I have never changed your comments elsewhere, and I have certainly never changed anyone else's. This was a big exception, to clean up the confusion we had in our exchange in that thread, and it was done with your agreement. Please get back to me on this. ~ ] (]) 12:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
			::] Don't know how I managed to overlook the ninth comment back! Of course I removed it, but told you why and to restore, which you did. No attempt to deceive you. I know my Talk page is being scrutinized now and a dossier being kept, lol! Technophant informed. No comment expected, Greg. :) ~ ] (]) 22:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

	== Talk pages ==		== Talk pages ==

Revision as of 22:48, 4 November 2014

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

Congratulations on your new archive

It's always good to keep things organized. Anyway, I finally am back at my computer and have checked out the article and it definitely mentions that Israel declared both ISIL (S? Whatever) and the Abdullah Azzam Brigades as teroris organizations (I intentionally misspell words like that to avoid certain filters). However, the talk page for the article on the former is really long. Where exactly is the discussion being held there? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

ISIS infoboxes

Thanks. However, I can't adjust the organization box to make them match the country box dimensions, because the length depends on how many bytes are taking up the space. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 07:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

gift

Better a stream than an ex. OK that wasn't as funny as intended.. but was meant well. Really appreciate your support m8. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC).

Timeline

I know you've given this a fair bit of thought and wondered whether it might be appropriate to suggest scrapping this section and just keeping the link in history. I recently gave the section the title "Timeline (latest events)" but it still takes three lines in the TOC. Current page size is 205,088 bytes. Cheers. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: Couldn't agree more. Have never been able to understand why it is duplicated in the ISIS article. I think a link with suitable wording is enough. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Links

Linking is really quite simple once you get the hang of it. I hope that helps -- PBS (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for going to all that trouble PBS, it is really appreciated. I think I will add this to my userpage! --P123ct1 (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I used to put stuff like this on my main user page, I now put notes like this into a subpage -- unimaginatively called user:PBS/Notes. If you look at my user page you will see that I have various subpages for different things. -- PBS (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@PBS: Good tip. Thanks. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If you decide that you want change the look of your user page then take a look at WP:UPDC and if that looks too complicated there are other users willing to help (see WP:UPH) -- PBS (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@PBS: I haven't been here long enough (since Feb this year) to put much into it. I'm just a humble copy-editor! But thanks. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey this is the translation

I hope this is the article you mentioned. I haven't been logging in much to be honest. I'm sorry for the delay as truthfully I could have done this before, but we're all hit by procrastination sometimes. Anyway:

"Israel Declares ISIS and Abdullah Azzam as Terrorist Organizations!

"The Israeli Ministry of Defense declared on Wednesday, on the recommendation of the Israeli General Security Service, that the organizations Islamic State (known publicly as "ISIS") and the Abdullah Azzam Brigades as terrorist organizations according to local journalists.

"Yedioth Ahronoth stated in a report posted on its web site: 'The Israeli Ministry of Defense has declared that ISIS is regarded as a terrorist organization, in addition to the Abdullah Azzam Brigades.'

"The paper added that the radification of the recommendation 'is in order for the Israeli security apparatus to take legal steps against these groups."

It's a super short article so I'm kind of afraid I'm translating the wrong thing. If so, I let me know and I will move on to the correct story. I believe the "Israeli Gen Security Service" refers to Shin Bet though I'm not sure as the article doesn't specify. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo: Thanks, that is the translation we needed. In the sentence "The Israeli Ministry of Defence declared ... that the organisations ... as terrorist organisations ..." there seems to be a verb missing. Can you look at this sentence again, please? --P123ct1 (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem wasn't with the translation but with my English grammar. The pronoun "that" wasn't in the sentence of the original Arabic though I wrote it here...actually I'm not sure why. Here's a version with the superfluous pronoun deleted:

"Israel Declares ISIS and Abdullah Azzam as Terrorist Organizations!

"The Israeli Ministry of Defense declared on Wednesday, on the recommendation of the Israeli General Security Service, the organizations Islamic State (known publicly as "ISIS") and the Abdullah Azzam Brigades as terrorist organizations according to local journalists.

"The paper added that the radification of the recommendation 'is in order for the Israeli security apparatus to take legal steps against these groups."

Again, sorry for the delay. It only took about 45 seconds to translate and I should have done it earlier. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense now. Twenty-one days to do a translation that only took 45 second to do! That must be a record! --P123ct1 (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh God, did I really take that long? That's a bit embarrassing...thanks for your patience. I hope you guys are able to use this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

UK Designation of ISIL

I reverted your revert of my change to the UK listing date. Please read pages 13, 14 and 15 of the linked Home Office doc and refer to Al-Qaida's listing of for the March 2011 date. If you still disagree, we can discuss. I understand that the UK designation ties in with the EU designation which ties back to the US Security Council designation. Legacypac (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac: Sorry, I missed it. It says March 2001 in the document, not 2011, and the spelling is "al-Qaeda" as per the Wiki article on al-Qaeda and this article. Could you alter the infobox, please? --P123ct1 (talk) 08:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac: I see your "UN Sanctions List" in the infobox has been changed to "via UN Sanctions", which is meaningless, so you may want to alter that as well. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok we are on the same page. Yes March 2001 not 2011. I'm ok if you make the adjustments. Legacypac (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac: Please would you correct them as they were your errors? Moving the cell in the infobox to fit in with the date sequence is particularly tricky and I am not used to dealing with infoboxes. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead

Hi P123ct1, I have previously found (Talk:Anti-Semitism etc.) that people talk most about WP:consensus when their arguments are not supported by policy. Category:Misplaced Pages discussion, WP:VOTE, Misplaced Pages:Consensus not numbers and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT may find relevance. Who knows? Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Intervening comments (no text removed)
@Gregkaye: What do you mean? The consensus I have been trying to determine on the last Lead para is within the WP guideline WP:LEAD. Are you referring to someone else's talk about consensus? What is the cabal you refer to? I am not aware of one on the ISIS page. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC) @Gregkaye: I have only just seen your insertions in that thread addressed to Felino. Were you talking about him? Having comments added in late which can be missed is very confusing. I had already put a note about it on the Talk page. :) A consensus decision on that edit has been reached now, I think, that there should be words added about Muslim criticism. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC) @P123ct1: I have just restored text as it was prior to Felino123's original deletion as per new thread: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Restoration of deleted lead text re criticism. WP:CONSENSUS is an effort to reach Misplaced Pages's goals. This has not been happening. A Cabal is similar to an interest group that works with undisclosed motives. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC) @Gregkaye: I still cannot understand. I am fully aware of what a cabal is, but who is the cabal? This has been openly discussed by editors on the Talk page and a decision has been reached about that last Lead paragraph. Have you not read the thread, in full? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC) I've read the thread. My perception is that there has been an undisclosed edit war with the wholesale deletion of content. After a war, at peace negotiations, it is most fair to return to starting positions and then work out directions. It isn't right to just take ground and then begin talks from there. WP:LEAD presents its standard and IMO the current state of the lead is towards a proportional representation of the subject. Felino123 still hasn't explained why he wants criticism out of the lead. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC) @Gregkaye: I have done my level best for that discussion on the Talk page. To me it was a decision fairly reached. You will have to fight it out with the others if you want to start from scratch. I do not agree with you on this as you know. Over to you now, I think. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC) Apols to you that this last episode has wasted your time. It wasn't well thought through. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC) @Gregkaye: I am relieved! I thought you had lost your head. Fog of battle and all that.;) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC) I don't think that I have the excuse of either fog or battle. There is definitely a release after setting a few things straight ... and - then - I - do - this. It wasn't my thought or intention but all I achieved was a fairly false making of a WP:POINT. Its not the way that I would prefer to operate and, in this case, the word operate may be badly applied. sigh. Thanks for dealing with things here. Big appreciation. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC) @Gregkaye: TY, that's okay. I pinged you in a comment on PBS's Talk page. Hope what I said helps. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC) With regard to my late edit after you had given comment, would it be better if I went back to redact. I've added explanations but would be happy to redo things if need be. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC) @Gregkaye: Have removed my comment with same note, so all okay now.:) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC) Whatever works but thanks :) Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC) @Gregkaye: I have removed our last two comments on the Talk page about the edit conflict as I don't really think they are needed, but if you want to restore, please do. :) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC) I think I will go back to the original. The chat recently has related to the need to steer away from the bad editing behaviours that I have exhibited. I think that the full message gets this over succintly: "I would like to explain/apologise for the timing and placement of some of my recent edits. For various reasons, which were partly due to my own responses, I had felt it difficult to respond to certain situations. Response has been late and has often been out of the continuity order of threads. This is bad editing practice and not an example to be followed. A further sin in this particular thread was that, when getting an edit conflict note from P123ct1's edit, I simply copied my initially planned edit and, without taking the new edit content into account, stuck with the same text. I hope none of you does the same. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)" I plan to revert to similar to the above but please edit this to your preference. PS. I was never a Catholic but think that one clear way to indicate good practice is in admission of bad practice. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Have changed "do" to "does" in the last line, though they won't remember what happened and if they did it would have barely registered, so I don't think you need to explain. The notes "Comments removed by agreement", perhaps adding "(edit conflict)", would be enough, IMO, but go ahead. :) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Gregkaye: Forgot to ping you in my last comment! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC) NP and thanks. I'm just working on a proposal "To or not to be - a qualification to Misplaced Pages's endorsement of ISIL as jihadist" at the moment Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Intervening comments (no text removed)

@Gregkaye: What do you mean? The consensus I have been trying to determine on the last Lead para is within the WP guideline WP:LEAD. Are you referring to someone else's talk about consensus? What is the cabal you refer to? I am not aware of one on the ISIS page. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: I have only just seen your insertions in that thread addressed to Felino. Were you talking about him? Having comments added in late which can be missed is very confusing. I had already put a note about it on the Talk page. :) A consensus decision on that edit has been reached now, I think, that there should be words added about Muslim criticism. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1: I have just restored text as it was prior to Felino123's original deletion as per new thread: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Restoration of deleted lead text re criticism. WP:CONSENSUS is an effort to reach Misplaced Pages's goals. This has not been happening. A Cabal is similar to an interest group that works with undisclosed motives. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: I still cannot understand. I am fully aware of what a cabal is, but who is the cabal? This has been openly discussed by editors on the Talk page and a decision has been reached about that last Lead paragraph. Have you not read the thread, in full? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I've read the thread. My perception is that there has been an undisclosed edit war with the wholesale deletion of content. After a war, at peace negotiations, it is most fair to return to starting positions and then work out directions. It isn't right to just take ground and then begin talks from there. WP:LEAD presents its standard and IMO the current state of the lead is towards a proportional representation of the subject. Felino123 still hasn't explained why he wants criticism out of the lead. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: I have done my level best for that discussion on the Talk page. To me it was a decision fairly reached. You will have to fight it out with the others if you want to start from scratch. I do not agree with you on this as you know. Over to you now, I think. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Apols to you that this last episode has wasted your time. It wasn't well thought through. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: I am relieved! I thought you had lost your head. Fog of battle and all that.;) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that I have the excuse of either fog or battle. There is definitely a release after setting a few things straight ... and - then - I - do - this. It wasn't my thought or intention but all I achieved was a fairly false making of a WP:POINT. Its not the way that I would prefer to operate and, in this case, the word operate may be badly applied. sigh. Thanks for dealing with things here. Big appreciation. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: TY, that's okay. I pinged you in a comment on PBS's Talk page. Hope what I said helps. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

With regard to my late edit after you had given comment, would it be better if I went back to redact. I've added explanations but would be happy to redo things if need be. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: Have removed my comment with same note, so all okay now.:) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Whatever works but thanks :) Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: I have removed our last two comments on the Talk page about the edit conflict as I don't really think they are needed, but if you want to restore, please do. :) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I will go back to the original. The chat recently has related to the need to steer away from the bad editing behaviours that I have exhibited. I think that the full message gets this over succintly:

"I would like to explain/apologise for the timing and placement of some of my recent edits. For various reasons, which were partly due to my own responses, I had felt it difficult to respond to certain situations. Response has been late and has often been out of the continuity order of threads. This is bad editing practice and not an example to be followed.

A further sin in this particular thread was that, when getting an edit conflict note from P123ct1's edit, I simply copied my initially planned edit and, without taking the new edit content into account, stuck with the same text. I hope none of you does the same. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)"

I plan to revert to similar to the above but please edit this to your preference. PS. I was never a Catholic but think that one clear way to indicate good practice is in admission of bad practice. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Have changed "do" to "does" in the last line, though they won't remember what happened and if they did it would have barely registered, so I don't think you need to explain. The notes "Comments removed by agreement", perhaps adding "(edit conflict)", would be enough, IMO, but go ahead. :) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: Forgot to ping you in my last comment! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

NP and thanks. I'm just working on a proposal "To or not to be - a qualification to Misplaced Pages's endorsement of ISIL as jihadist" at the moment Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: "Comments removed by agreement" and "(edit conflict)" I don't mind which wording was used. My prose often lack the current lucidness of the text and am happy to leave further changes to you. I'll also add a note for Worldedixor to again give thanks (sounding religious again) for support and that I have been more than happy with the minimal and open tinkering with and correcting of my texts by P123ct1. There is a high level of trust here. I have recently un-collapsed a text, changed titles and things like that. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: When have I altered your text apart from this time, Greg? I can remember another time in a note directing readers to another discussion, but I have never changed your comments elsewhere, and I have certainly never changed anyone else's. This was a big exception, to clean up the confusion we had in our exchange in that thread, and it was done with your agreement. Please get back to me on this. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye Don't know how I managed to overlook the ninth comment back! Of course I removed it, but told you why and to restore, which you did. No attempt to deceive you. I know my Talk page is being scrutinized now and a dossier being kept, lol! Technophant informed. No comment expected, Greg. :) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages

Please place a diff on my user page and I will tell you what I think. -- PBS (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I was not sure who was altering section headers so I used a nifty tool called Misplaced Pages:WikiBlame which is usually used to help to find copyright violation but is also useful for other things.

Intervening comments (no text removed)
With this edit you are going around it the wrong way. The correct and accepted way is leave the header alone: their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality Then just under the header add: `:''See also ]''` `:''See also ]''` This will add: See also Logical Order in Lead See also The word "jihad", criticism and disruption to the top of the section. There is no need to show the page name and when the section gets archived all that needs adding is `:''See also ]''` To the headers. This is not a novel idea and you will see it in many places on Misplaced Pages talk pages, when an editor wants to link to an older conversation. -- PBS (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC) @PBS: Thank you very much. While I was blundering around with the headings I was looking for help - I even asked the VPTHD as I couldn't understand the WP Help on this, but didn't get a very useful answer. I was trying to get the links on the same line as the heading so that they would show up in the TOC, which would make it easier for editors to scan for related discussion, but ended up with confusing title headings on the TOC which cancelled out the very help I was trying to give. I will sort out my horrors now I know what to do. I am surprised you could use the Wikiblame tool. I used to use it a lot and then it seemed to be broken. Perhaps it has been repaired now, which is good because it is a very useful tool, after Hedonil's, which has not worked for some time for maintenance reasons, I understand, though I have not checked lately. PS Bring back Reflinks! Its replacement is nowhere near as good, as it only fills in some of the parameters. I know about the dispute over Reflinks, and it doesn't look very hopeful that it will return. :( ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC) (I wish all "blundering" could be as effective to leave serviceable and in some ways advantageous results. It's interesting to hear that it isn't a novel idea and, who knows, if Misplaced Pages were to be rethought a related system might even be institutionalised. (A system that gave access to see also information in / drop down menus in the TOC might bring out the best from both worlds). Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)) @PBS: I have rectified all the links between discussions following your format, but there is one link that will not work and I cannot see my mistake. The link is TOC discussion #3, their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality”. The two related discussions are #4 Logical Order in Lead and #12, The word “jihad”, criticism and disruption, and clicking on "their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality” beneath them does not work. Can you help, please? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC) One last point. If you add such hat-notes and another editor complains that edit was made out of order and was not signed -- This will happen occasionally -- then just move the see also lines down to the current bottom of the section and sign the edit, as it is better to do that than get into pointless arguments over the format of a talk page section. -- PBS (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC) Gregkaye: Have solved the problem! It was to do with "curly"/"straight" quote marks in the title. I knew "curly" quote marks can cause problems, but never thought of this until just now. I usually associate this problem with footnotes. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC) The hatnotes are much better, but please do not put jump forwards at the top of sections but only jump backs. I think it is very confusing to have jump forwards at the top of sections, because people are expecting older comments to be at the top of a section, so how can an old comment at the top anticipate a new section lower down the page? As I said confusing! However if as you have done in one place, you want to include at the bottom of a section information indicating that the conversation continues lower down in a new section, I think that is fine. Also on reviewing what you are doing, it will be better if you put "Archive n:" into the visible part of link to a section if a section is archived otherwise editors may be tempted to start to add comments into the section not realising it is a section in an archive. PBS (talk) -- 16:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Intervening comments (no text removed)

With this edit you are going around it the wrong way. The correct and accepted way is leave the header alone:

their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality

Then just under the header add:

:''See also ]''

This will add:

See also Logical Order in Lead

See also The word "jihad", criticism and disruption

to the top of the section. There is no need to show the page name and when the section gets archived all that needs adding is

:''See also ]''

To the headers. This is not a novel idea and you will see it in many places on Misplaced Pages talk pages, when an editor wants to link to an older conversation. -- PBS (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@PBS: Thank you very much. While I was blundering around with the headings I was looking for help - I even asked the VPTHD as I couldn't understand the WP Help on this, but didn't get a very useful answer. I was trying to get the links on the same line as the heading so that they would show up in the TOC, which would make it easier for editors to scan for related discussion, but ended up with confusing title headings on the TOC which cancelled out the very help I was trying to give. I will sort out my horrors now I know what to do. I am surprised you could use the Wikiblame tool. I used to use it a lot and then it seemed to be broken. Perhaps it has been repaired now, which is good because it is a very useful tool, after Hedonil's, which has not worked for some time for maintenance reasons, I understand, though I have not checked lately.

PS Bring back Reflinks! Its replacement is nowhere near as good, as it only fills in some of the parameters. I know about the dispute over Reflinks, and it doesn't look very hopeful that it will return. :( ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

(I wish all "blundering" could be as effective to leave serviceable and in some ways advantageous results. It's interesting to hear that it isn't a novel idea and, who knows, if Misplaced Pages were to be rethought a related system might even be institutionalised. (A system that gave access to see also information in / drop down menus in the TOC might bring out the best from both worlds). Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC))

@PBS: I have rectified all the links between discussions following your format, but there is one link that will not work and I cannot see my mistake. The link is TOC discussion #3, their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality”. The two related discussions are #4 Logical Order in Lead and #12, The word “jihad”, criticism and disruption, and clicking on "their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality” beneath them does not work. Can you help, please? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

One last point. If you add such hat-notes and another editor complains that edit was made out of order and was not signed -- This will happen occasionally -- then just move the see also lines down to the current bottom of the section and sign the edit, as it is better to do that than get into pointless arguments over the format of a talk page section. -- PBS (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: Have solved the problem! It was to do with "curly"/"straight" quote marks in the title. I knew "curly" quote marks can cause problems, but never thought of this until just now. I usually associate this problem with footnotes. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The hatnotes are much better, but please do not put jump forwards at the top of sections but only jump backs. I think it is very confusing to have jump forwards at the top of sections, because people are expecting older comments to be at the top of a section, so how can an old comment at the top anticipate a new section lower down the page? As I said confusing! However if as you have done in one place, you want to include at the bottom of a section information indicating that the conversation continues lower down in a new section, I think that is fine.

Also on reviewing what you are doing, it will be better if you put "Archive n:" into the visible part of link to a section if a section is archived otherwise editors may be tempted to start to add comments into the section not realising it is a section in an archive. PBS (talk) -- 16:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

PBS: Only a few of the linked discussions are consecutive. They can run in parallel with considerable overlap even though one may begin before another. This is why your point never occurred to me, but I understand what you mean. This is also why a couple of them, or at least in one because I did it, have a note at the end of the thread saying please stop commenting here and continue in the linked discussion (with name). Surely it would help editors to know about all the discussions there might be on a topic? Leaving it to the end of the thread to tell them is not as helpful, I think. Perhaps each link underneath the main heading could indicate whether it is "earlier" or "later" discussion. If I can think of a short way of doing that I could add it. I take your point about adding "archive "n"". ~ P123ct1 (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Anbar campaign (2013–14)

I was wondering if you could help me rewrite this article. It includes an event around new year 2013 that seems to be the spark that ignited this current conflict into what it is, however it isn't written well at all. There's also poor coverage of these events in the Timeline and complete absence of these events in the ISIL article.~Technophant (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I can knock it into shape by rewriting badly-written passages and cleaning up syntax, grammar, etc, if that is what you mean? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The account in the Lead is a horrendous muddle, going by the citation appended. It will have to be completely rewritten. I am surprised no-one has done this before. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 3 November

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

On the Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant events page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Timeline 2

@P123ct1: What were your reasons for supporting the removal of timeline content from ISIL? Mine were only the length of the content and that it wasn't within the history section. Just a thought. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: It just seemed logical that as there was a separate timeline article there was no need to duplicate parts of it in this article. I have always thought that. If it has to stay, it will have to be at the end, as after the history section would mess up the article. Not very satisfactory I know.

I think our friend is back. The shadowing is a dead giveaway. :D ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering whether it would be possible to get a limited content from timeline at the end of history and to make notable members as a stand alone section. Even 0 - ~30 days might work rather than ~30 - ~60 days. I've mentioned this on the talk page. Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: I think having "Notable members" as a standalone would be a good idea. Where could it go? Even ~30 days would unbalance the page, I think, and it would push "Criticism" down again. One reason why I moved the appendix-like section on "Support" and "Opponents" to the end was so that "Criticism" would rise higher. Though it was discussed on the Talk page I am waiting for someone to revert that bold move! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I think we need a significant criticism content in the lead. I think a timeline content might go well in history. My ideal would be 7 days but 0 - 30 averages at ~2 weeks Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye:I don't mind much one way or the other, really. But I agree there needs to be more criticism in the Lead, at the end. I have said so on the Talk page. You realize this will be interpreted as tag-teaming, don't you? Ridiculous, but any ammunition will do for our friend. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)