| Revision as of 22:51, 13 December 2014 editP-123 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,841 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:55, 13 December 2014 edit undoP-123 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,841 edits →Sovereign stateNext edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| ]: Made that seemingly tangential comment deliberately. No real wish to continue an exchange with the editor. Had looked at some of those links but not in any great detail. Am not really interested into getting into it, wanted just to make a broad observation. Obviously RS sources have to be followed on this for a general statement in WP's voice, but it seems none can be found. Anything else will be OR, even my comment. Difficult. Better to spend the time looking for some RS than arguing technical points on what is and is not a state, unrecognized state, etc. I think, then reflecting them fairly in the article. The spark has gone of out my interest in ISIL and this article, I'm afraid. Really do prefer to keep to copy-editing it, though I may briefly add support to any editor's view I share. Good luck with Anasaitis; didn't realize they were anti-you until I saw the comments. ] (]) 17:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC) | ]: Made that seemingly tangential comment deliberately. No real wish to continue an exchange with the editor. Had looked at some of those links but not in any great detail. Am not really interested into getting into it, wanted just to make a broad observation. Obviously RS sources have to be followed on this for a general statement in WP's voice, but it seems none can be found. Anything else will be OR, even my comment. Difficult. Better to spend the time looking for some RS than arguing technical points on what is and is not a state, unrecognized state, etc. I think, then reflecting them fairly in the article. The spark has gone of out my interest in ISIL and this article, I'm afraid. Really do prefer to keep to copy-editing it, though I may briefly add support to any editor's view I share. Good luck with Anasaitis; didn't realize they were anti-you until I saw the comments. ] (]) 17:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :]: Ate my words! Did respond as the editor made an interesting point. ~ ] (]) 19:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC) | :]: Ate my words! Did respond as the editor made an interesting point. ~ ] (]) 19:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::I do not doubt that you will not be happy with what I say here but you continue to argue dirty. Lastly you made unfounded insinuation regarding consensus.'''''' Now its you state "Cannot justify this view, just seems common sense to me"." You know enough about ] not to have needed this point pointed but I honestly suspect that your pro-ISIL sympathies overrode all. '''''' You also mention "Any lawyer can weasel out of it" and infer that ''"facts''" are being "twisted or denied" and then claim the use of sophistries. PLEASE see ]. In regard to sophistries, if you are to make criticism on issues like rethoric then you should do so directly.'''''' You state that, "these are all hard facts, and they have to be dealt with as such in this article". Sure. They are dealt with in the article. The article is here to present facts directly. However, you also state, "It is also a caliphate with a caliph, whether or not this accepted by anyone else". Read ]. Would you state something like, "It is also ''the'' caliphate with ''the'' caliph". Please don't ignore all the objections. I appreciate that you only went as far as to suggest '"unrecognised state" seems a good description'. What happened though since the time that I was also questioning this, you added the tag ''"how?"''? ''' '''Amongst everything else we ''can't'' just ignore ]. You know this and yet you still advocate a view that you "Cannot justify". Please, we have mentioned POV so many times. Please consider the above. I predict that I am likely to delete it anyway. You have mentioned that it is better to defer disagreement to User talk pages so here it is. You have gone from you making attacks without substantiation '''''' to now pushing content that, by your own words, you can't justify. There are some really basic principles of Misplaced Pages involved here. I really think you need to consider POV issues here and, yes, I do want to pin you down on this. ] ] 21:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC) | ::I do not doubt that you will not be happy with what I say here but you continue to argue dirty.''']''' Lastly you made unfounded insinuation regarding consensus.'''''' Now its you state "Cannot justify this view, just seems common sense to me"." You know enough about ] not to have needed this point pointed but I honestly suspect that your pro-ISIL sympathies overrode all. '''''' You also mention "Any lawyer can weasel out of it" and infer that ''"facts''" are being "twisted or denied" and then claim the use of sophistries. PLEASE see ]. In regard to sophistries, if you are to make criticism on issues like rethoric then you should do so directly.'''''' You state that, "these are all hard facts, and they have to be dealt with as such in this article". Sure. They are dealt with in the article. The article is here to present facts directly. However, you also state, "It is also a caliphate with a caliph, whether or not this accepted by anyone else". Read ]. Would you state something like, "It is also ''the'' caliphate with ''the'' caliph". Please don't ignore all the objections. I appreciate that you only went as far as to suggest '"unrecognised state" seems a good description'. What happened though since the time that I was also questioning this, you added the tag ''"how?"''? ''' '''Amongst everything else we ''can't'' just ignore ]. You know this and yet you still advocate a view that you "Cannot justify". Please, we have mentioned POV so many times. Please consider the above. I predict that I am likely to delete it anyway. You have mentioned that it is better to defer disagreement to User talk pages so here it is. You have gone from you making attacks without substantiation '''''' to now pushing content that, by your own words, you can't justify. There are some really basic principles of Misplaced Pages involved here. I really think you need to consider POV issues here and, yes, I do want to pin you down on this. ] ] 21:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| FOR IBAN? | |||
Revision as of 22:55, 13 December 2014
 Archives |
Please leave messages below.
Access to JSTOR and BNA
You might have missed some valuable chances. You might apply for 1-year unlimited access to JSTOR and BNA through the following links:
I've applied and now am approved to have access to them. Mhhossein (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Mhhossein: Thanks for the tip! ~ P-123 (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Fourteen infallibles
Thanks for your cooperation in The Fourteen Infallibles. Are you finished with it? Mhhossein (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Mhhossein: Yes. I cannot see how to improve the article further, as my knowledge of the subject is practically non-existent. All I could really do was correct the grammar, syntax and formatting. I have edited the Family Tree, but it did not need much editing, and have tidied up some of the formatting in the notes and the rest. Good luck with promoting the article. ~ P-123 (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well done. You did great. Btw, using "ping code" is a safer way to inform other editors. Some times I'm mentioned in the talk pages, but I'm not informed until I check the pages. Mhhossein (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Fall of Fallujah.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. If the fall of Fallujah is not in the article, it means that someone must have deleted it and the sources associated with it. It was probably one of those idiots who have been fighting over the status of ISIS. Someone needs to do something about those fools before they ruin the article. I'll try to rescue the orphaned references (Did I say that right? That is what this is called, isn't it?) and re-add the information, but it will take some time. I wish I could do something about the disruptive editors, but I'm new here, and I don't know what to do. Thanks again! Anasaitis (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Anasaitis: Yes, please add it if it is important information. I cannot remember it being there, but if you can find the orphaned references and restore the information, it will improve the article. It will need to go in the "As Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" part of the "History" section. Do you mean editors who are anti-ISIL are spoiling the article? In my opinion at the moment the article is not always spoken in a neutral voice, which is against one of Misplaced Pages's main policies in WP:FIVEPILLARS. Remember you can add your voice to the Talk page discussions on anything and if you do not agree with what is said there you must speak up. It doesn't matter if you have not followed all the discussion, your opinion will be as valuable as any other editor's. ~ P-123 (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Sovereign state
Hi, I just want to check that you realise the first thread on the page related to the listing of ISIL on pages such as Sovereign state and other pages that are populated by content on recognised nations? What are your thoughts on following sources on this? GregKaye ✍♪ 16:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- The debate on whether how we should describe the group is mentioned elsewhere and I think that those comments are more appropriate elsewhere. Also ping Kahastok to perhaps avoid unnecessary clash. I hope that's OK. GregKaye ✍♪ 16:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
GregKaye: Made that seemingly tangential comment deliberately. No real wish to continue an exchange with the editor. Had looked at some of those links but not in any great detail. Am not really interested into getting into it, wanted just to make a broad observation. Obviously RS sources have to be followed on this for a general statement in WP's voice, but it seems none can be found. Anything else will be OR, even my comment. Difficult. Better to spend the time looking for some RS than arguing technical points on what is and is not a state, unrecognized state, etc. I think, then reflecting them fairly in the article. The spark has gone of out my interest in ISIL and this article, I'm afraid. Really do prefer to keep to copy-editing it, though I may briefly add support to any editor's view I share. Good luck with Anasaitis; didn't realize they were anti-you until I saw the comments. P-123 (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- GregKaye: Ate my words! Did respond as the editor made an interesting point. ~ P-123 (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- I do not doubt that you will not be happy with what I say here but you continue to argue dirty.WP:PA Lastly you made unfounded insinuation regarding consensus. Now its you state "Cannot justify this view, just seems common sense to me"." You know enough about WP:OR not to have needed this point pointed but I honestly suspect that your pro-ISIL sympathies overrode all. You also mention "Any lawyer can weasel out of it" and infer that "facts" are being "twisted or denied" and then claim the use of sophistries. PLEASE see WP:INDCRIT. In regard to sophistries, if you are to make criticism on issues like rethoric then you should do so directly. You state that, "these are all hard facts, and they have to be dealt with as such in this article". Sure. They are dealt with in the article. The article is here to present facts directly. However, you also state, "It is also a caliphate with a caliph, whether or not this accepted by anyone else". Read Caliphate. Would you state something like, "It is also the caliphate with the caliph". Please don't ignore all the objections. I appreciate that you only went as far as to suggest '"unrecognised state" seems a good description'. What happened though since the time that I was also questioning this, you added the tag "how?"? Amongst everything else we can't just ignore WP:RS. You know this and yet you still advocate a view that you "Cannot justify". Please, we have mentioned POV so many times. Please consider the above. I predict that I am likely to delete it anyway. You have mentioned that it is better to defer disagreement to User talk pages so here it is. You have gone from you making attacks without substantiation to now pushing content that, by your own words, you can't justify. There are some really basic principles of Misplaced Pages involved here. I really think you need to consider POV issues here and, yes, I do want to pin you down on this. GregKaye ✍♪ 21:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
FOR IBAN?