Misplaced Pages

As far as I know, with certain restrictions to do with warnings and not changing other editor's contributions (WP:OWNTALK, WP:REMOVED, and WP:TALKO) among others) you are free to do partial archives and delete other sections as you wish.

Bot to archive

Edit the below to remove the hidden comment parts <!-- and --> and move the coding to the top of your page to have a bot archive your stuff. Change the YOURUSERNAMEHERE to you and fiddle with the other parameters to meet your level of discussion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleted comments

The deleted comments can be found quite easily by looking through the history of the page and pulling up the diffs:

• Revision as of 08:38, 10 July 2014
• Revision as of 05:43, 29 August
• Revision as of 05:47, 29 August 2014
• Revision as of 22:06, 30 August 2014 undid
• Revision as of 11:20, 1 September 2014
• Revision as of 11:20, 25 September 2014
• Revision as of 06:51, 26 September 2014
• Revision as of 15:58, 30 September 2014
• Revision as of 22:56, 8 October 2014

Those are the deleted stuff up to the first archive. It would be relative easy to to cut and past the diffs back into the appropriate places in first or second archive if you so wished. -- PBS (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for going to that trouble PBS, much appreciated. I will get it archived. How did you find it? I thought archives didn't keep deleted comments. I have been asking at WP:HD how to deal with this, so I have a complete archive record, how to do automatic archiving with a bot and how to do partial archiving. I noticed you said you copied your edit history over when archiving. How do you do that? I was a bit shocked to learn that deleted sections don't get retrieved by the bot, so the records won't be complete. I am still vague about deleted comments and how they get archived, so would like to know how you retrieved all the above. Sorry, still floundering with the technical side of WP editing. P-123 (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

If you move a page the history moves with it, that is as true for a talk page as it is for an article. To find these diffs above I simply listed the history of your talk page and looked for any edit you made that had a large negative number in it. -- PBS (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Terrorism

see WP:TERRORIST, that has been simplified from earlier versions, this older version, but it is meant to convey the same message.

See also "let the facts speak for themselves" and "assert the facts".

For the underlying reason why terrorist is a pejorative word see the article section Terrorism § Pejorative use.

If you want to see an example in practice of how all this works, have a look at the lead in al-Qaeda. It took a long debate on the talk page to remove the passive narrative use of "terrorist" and to rely on inline attribution to the most authoritative sources (UN down to specific countries: "United Nations Security Council, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), the European Union, the United States, Russia, India and various other countries (see below)." but I think the al-Qaeda article is better for it.

-- PBS (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, PBS. Editors had come to the same conclusion some months ago, that the only way "terrorist" could be used in the article in WP's own voice was in the Lead sentence with the terrorist desginations. That also was a long debate. I will look at those links. P-123 (talk) 07:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year 2014

Military History Newcomer of the Year 2014

You needed just some more votes!

I checked the voting procedure and you'd cast two votes in one of the elections. However you got two valuable barnstars. Hope to see you in the first rank next year! Mhhossein (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Mhhossein: Yes, I had looked at those pages and saw the votes. Thank you very much for the nomination! It is nice to have not one but two very unexpected barnstars for editing in the ISIS article! P-123 (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC).

You're welcome. The barnsatrs are due to nomination and you deserved it. Mhhossein (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Mhhossein: I saw that everyone who was nominated would receive barnstars. It was still nice to have them, and it was thanks to your recognition that I did.!  :) P-123 (talk) 07:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I just mentioned some facts about your editions. I believe that expressing the power points will lead to more developments. Keep on enhancing Misplaced Pages! Mhhossein (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations

Mhhossein Thank you for the good wishes and wonderful message! Do you have an equivalent day in the Muslim calendar? P-123 (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome P-123. We, Iranian, celebrate the beginning of the new year which is the first day of spring and we call this celebration "Nowruz, (Template:Lang-en)". This occasion is some how important from Islamic point of view and shia usually celebrates Nowrouz. Mhhossein (talk) 07:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Categories

This edit, would have been better as a request with an explanation (teach a person to fish), it was definitely something that needed doing as including such categories in user space includes the page in that category.

Take the first category listed that was deleted: Category:2006 establishments in Iraq (to display the category include an initial colon ]) Clearly that category should not include User:P-123/My userpage 2 which it did before the questionable edit. Basically do not include links to article categories on user space or talk pages. If you want to reference them then use the start with a colon trick.

If you are developing a page in a sandbox then comment to categories out using <!--]--> until the text the sandbox is copied into article space

-- PBS (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

PBS: Am sure it was the right thing for the editor to do, just would have appreciated a note beforehand. They said they left one afterwards, but I didn't get the ping or see any message about it. At the time I just wanted a copy of an earlier version (any) of the page on my userpage as a reference, to compare with later versions. I did not intend to do anything with it. So everything was moved over when I copied that version to the userpage (I think I did it manually!) Again, I had no idea it would cause complications. Forgot it was there until today. I am assuming the questionable edit doesn't refer to an edit I made, as I didn't alter the text. Thanks for the clarification otherwise. P-123 (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

barnstar

ISIS copy-editing: announcement

I can no longer copy-edit this article as it has moved in a direction I disagree with too much. Grammatical and syntax errors will have to stay uncorrected. I have given the article my best shot. P-123 (talk)

December 2014

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (dated 27 December 2014)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guardian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Sock puppet?

Hello P-123, you left a comment on the ISIS board saying you are not a sock puppet? I was going to say the conversation is serious and you should not joke about puppets but maybe I am missing something. What do you mean, how is a sock puppet relavent to the discussion? Mbcap (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I left a message for you on the Talk page. As you say you are new, I am not sure if you know what a sock-puppet is. See WP:SOCKPUPPET. When someone wants to edit not under their own name, they take out another account under a fictitious name (the penalties for this are heavy). I agree with you that the article is heavily biased, for all the reasons you gave, and have been very outspoken about it, especially lately, and it has made me very unpopular with some of the editors you addressed. The conversation you started is indeed very serious. See WP:NPOV, which is one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS Misplaced Pages is founded on. P-123 (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh Ok, I came over to your talk page to apologise for thinking you were joking about the sock puppet thing. My apologies for jumping the gun. I hope no one has accused you because I would take great offence as it is by proxy an accusation against me. The page is very biased and even though I have been outspoken about it, I cannot apologise because the non NPOV nature of the page is shocking to me. I think I have raised some strong points so hopefully it will be changed. If I have any questions regarding unfamiliar or complicated wikipedia policy in the future, could I ask you? I promise I will not bug you with questions.Mbcap (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Mbcap: Yes, you can ask me. The bias in this article is shocking to me as well. There have been many fights over it in the past months, and those who insist it is unbiased have prevailed, mainly because many of the editors who thought like you and I have either left or do not seem to want to get involved in this debate again. To me the article reads more like anti-ISIL propaganda than an encyclopaedia. P-123 (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

See also WP:CONSENSUS on how editorial decisions are taken. P-123 (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks mate, I am grateful. I will stick at it till I can. Mbcap (talk) 20:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Unsolicited Advice

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

It seems to me you are taking Misplaced Pages far to seriously for your own health and sanity. Step back - it's just the internet - and try something less stressful. WP:WIN Legacypac (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac Funny you should say that. It is what I was going to say to Gregkaye but thought better of it. There were quite a few moral principles at stake at that AN/I and it is those I was concerned about. That the arena was Misplaced Pages is irrelevant. It will be a relief to get back to more civilized editing again, away from ISIS and related pages! P-123 (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You are now subject to community imposed sanctions

In accordance with the the consensus in this ANI discussion you are new subject to the following sanction:

• P-123 (talk · contribs) is topic banned for three months (expiry 23:00, 2 April 2015, Thursday (2 months, 30 days from now) (UTC+11)) from all pages broadly related to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, notwithstanding the usual exemptions.
• P-123 (talk · contribs) and GregKaye (talk · contribs) are prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Misplaced Pages, for three months (expiry 23:00, 2 April 2015, Thursday (2 months, 30 days from now) (UTC+11)) notwithstanding the usual exemptions.

These sanctions will be enforced with escalating blocks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Three cheers!

No more Gregkaye, no more ISIS! Perhaps I can get my sanity back now. Back to peaceable, civilised copy-editing. P-123 (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Two unacceptable talk page edits

From my talk page:

It seems defending myself roundly at the AN/I has done me no favours. The universal dislike is palpable! I edited peaceably from February when I started in Misplaced Pages until the beginning of December when I became more outspoken on editing points, and now this! You said you were going to give me an opinion on one of the charges. The AN/I is being dragooned to a conclusion by Legacpac, so I wondered if I could have this before it ended.

You said this at the AN/I:

"Having spent time going through ... list of accusations, there is only one that I think is substantial enough on its own to warrant concern even when assuming good faith, and I will discuss that directly with user:P-123 on the talk page of P-123. -- PBS (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)"

I would be grateful if you could let me know which one this was and why. P-123 (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

to enclose the quote I used this at the top:

<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: lightyellow; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">

And this at the bottom:

</div>

In a case like this I did not have to copy it I could just of easily have written:

With reference to your posting on my talk page here.

Both of these are way that you can include other editor's comments while making it clear that they are another editor's comment (and in the first case that your own comments is also copied). See also the template {{quotation}} which will do the same thing but does not handle URLs (html links) very well.

I took the trouble to review the postings by user:GregKaye at the recent ANI and while most of them taken in isolation were not enough to warrant administrative action they did build up into problematic behaviour. One area in particular was a clear breach of WP:Talk page guidelines is your pertinacity to alter other editors comments. This you do in three ways.

1. Simply deleting others comments. That I will address in a a new section below.
2. Copying other editors text from one place to another and silently changing it.
3. appending your comments to comments written by others.

I think you have done this in the past because you have not stopped to consider that intense conversation you are having with another editor, is public property. So while the other editor (with whom you are in conflict) will immediately see and understand what you have done, you have not taken into account that others may well read the conversation (this is good because it helps build a consensus), and be completly mislead by your alterations. Likewise I had great difficulty reconstructing the edit history because your changes altered the what appeared in the archives in confusing ways. Here are the two examples to which I previously alluded:

1. With this edit you have copied a statement by GregKaye from one place to another without making it clear it was a copy and simultaneously amended it. This is totally out of order as you have given no indication that you have done so and that GregKaye is not the author of the edit.
2. With this edit you appended your comment and signature to another editor's comment. For any one reading the exchange they would assume that it is all your comment because you have signed it. If you had wanted to make the point you did then at the very minimum you should have placed the comment as an indentation on a new line, but given the lack of bad faith between GregKaye and yourself you should have followed his wishes and not inserted your comments interlaced into his.

Both of these edits given the lack of good faith between the two of you could have resulted in a block for your account to bring it home to you that such behaviour is unacceptable, because you simply did not seem to understand that GregKaye request for you to stop such behaviour was reasonable as they are breaches of the talk page guidlines. This is all I am going to say on points two and three. I will not enter into a conversation with you about these edits so do not reply to this message either to ask for clarification or to justify your edits. I will take any reply as a breach of your topic ban. -- PBS (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours

You may not delete another editors comment on the talk page of another user as you did here -- doubly so when the talk page belongs to an admin! Given your recent case at ANI this behaviour shows that you have yet to understand that your behaviour on talk pages is not acceptable, so I have blocked your account for 48 hours. During your block reread WP:Talk page guidelines and make sure in future not to breach both the explicit and implicit guidance that it gives. -- PBS (talk) 10:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

P-123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked for 48 hours for removing an editor's comment on an admin's page (see below).

On 27 December I was taken to AN/I and late yesterday (UK time) received a 90-day topic ban and an IBAN. Since 27 December I have been under tremendous pressure, especially yesterday, and have been behaving erratically generally. This morning I received a 48-hour block for deleting another editor's comment addressed to me on an admin's talk page. I did it before submitting my own message. I remember removing the comment, but cannot properly remember why I did it. I did not even read it properly (have only just done now). I think I wanted to have a "clear run" at putting my message to the admin. It was done in a moment of madness as I know such removal is not permitted.

I have never been in a situation like this before (ref the AN/I) and have found coping with it extremely difficult. I have never received any kind of sanction in Misplaced Pages, had a clean record up to the AN/I and always try to keep within WP guidelines, as far as I know them. My knowledge of these guidelines is limited as I started Misplaced Pages editing in February 2014 and there is still much to learn. I have never deliberately tried to evade guidelines.

I request an unblock so that I can start to edit pages outside my topic ban and will be careful to keep to guidelines from now on, paying particular attention to not editing the pages or comments of others.
~ P-123 (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Given that you're feeling under pressure, I'd suggest taking a break from editing for a few days. PhilKnight (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.