Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Technophant/Archive 3) (bot |
|||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
{{archives|auto=short}} |
{{archives|auto=short}} |
||
==Banned users== |
|||
Due to disruptive edits, insults to myself or others, personal attacks, harassment or other incivility, users QuackGuru, Atlan, BullRangifer, and MrBill3 are indefinitely banned from editing on my talk pages. I had tried to make a "free speech" zone where editing would be allowed, however I no longer wish to do this. I'm done being bullied. I am asking for a mutual [[WP:IBAN]] to allow Wikipedia to once again be a safe place from personal attacks and harassment. - <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~[[User:Technophant|Technophant]] <small>([[User talk:Technophant|talk]])</small></span> 03:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:I have decided to unban all banned editors ([[User:QuackGuru]], [[User:Atlan]], [[User:BullRangifer]], and [[User:MrBill3]]) from my talk page. If there's any further problems with inappropriate actions they will be dealt with or ignored. ~[[User:Technophant|Technophant]] <small>([[User talk:Technophant|talk]])</small> 20:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
==Worldedixor== |
|||
Technophant, I sympathise. Worldedixor's blanking of your comments on their talkpage without reply is certainly rude and uncollaborative. But they're "allowed" to do that per policy, so you're still not supposed to restore posts that they have removed. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 20:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC). |
|||
:@[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] How in the world can a civil group of editors deal with such an uncivil one if there's no way to communicate? ~[[User:Technophant|Technophant]] <small>([[User talk:Technophant|talk]])</small> 21:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::I personally think there should be some limit to the "right" to remove/ignore comments on one's talkpage, but I guess I'm in the minority. I'm sorry, there's nothing I can do about it. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 21:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC). |
|||
:::@[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] - If WE's edits were bullet-proof and this was the only problem I wouldn't be having this conversation with you right now. Since I've been gone there seems to loss of civility of a very functional working group. And I'm not talking about "way back when" I'm talking just 30 days ago. I think a [[WP:CBAN]] is in order. ~[[User:Technophant|Technophant]] <small>([[User talk:Technophant|talk]])</small> 21:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::I know it's not the only problem. If you look at their talkpage history, you'll find me there — so much so that I'd rather not take the initiative here. If you're sure you have a convincing case, take it to ANI. If you're not, wait until you have, and in the meantime make sure you yourself behave well in your dealings with them — so don't restore stuff that they have deleted from their page. In fact, you might want to revert your edit there. That's my best advice. I understand it's a frustrating situation. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 21:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC). |
|||
:::::It's kind of crazy what you can and can't get away with on here. ~[[User:Technophant|Technophant]] <small>([[User talk:Technophant|talk]])</small> 21:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Yes. And now it's too late to revert yourself. Pity you didn't do it when I first wrote to you. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 21:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC). |
|||
::::::It reminds me of high school chemistry where we were told several times not to touch the 30% hydrogen peroxide w.o gloves. I of course did. Got instant superficial white chemical burns on my fingers, however it would have been worse if I hadn't had any warning. ~[[User:Technophant|Technophant]] <small>([[User talk:Technophant|talk]])</small> 00:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I've commented on his PAs at the article talk page. Sorry I didn't respond yesterday, kept meaning to but postponing it. I agree with Bish. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 10:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Your filing at deletion review == |
== Your filing at deletion review == |
||
Revision as of 01:30, 17 October 2014
Welcome to my talk page! Please remember to remain civil. Users who wish to insult, harass or battleground may be asked not to edit on my talk page as per wp:userspace guidelines. Due to personal issues, there may unanticipated periods of little or no editing or monitoring. If there's an urgent issue you can email me or Thank one of my edits to trigger an alert.~Technophant (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present. |
Your filing at deletion review
I wanted to let you know that I've removed your request for a deletion review, due to the reasoning that I've given at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=624108205. Simply put, this is potentially a significant threat to the subject of the article, and our normal deletion process just isn't meant for the situation. If you disagree, feel free to contact me offline, and I'll be happy to talk far more freely that way. Nyttend (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- As I already told you, this is a real-life sensitive situation — mentioning the name on-wiki can potentially have real-life consequences for the subject of the article. This is one of those rare situations in which we need to ignore all rules and delete things that normally would be kept online. If you contact Arbcom and they advise me to self-revert, or if the oversight people disagree with my actions, I'll happily undelete everything, but unless that happens, this name absolutely must be kept quiet. Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ok. I didn't see your talk page post when I wrote this. I'm not aware of the discussions behind the scenes that lead to this decision, however you weren't trusted with oversight flag for no reason. It's a very unusual situation, but I don't think that removing the name here with make any real difference.~Technophant (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks; I'm sorry I was short with you, but it seemed like a potential emergency, and I was afraid that you were intentionally spreading the name around. As I said at Jimbo's talk page, I wasn't completely sure that I was doing the right thing, and that's why I was actively looking for a response from the oversight people (I don't have that ability myself). Someone has since responded from Oversight, granting my request; only oversighters can now see these revisions. Nyttend (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Nyttend I see that you were trusted with Wikipedia:Edit filter manager flag, not Oversight. I was just trying to further coverage on in the area. I disagree with the media blackout. See The Media Blackout on Hostages Helps ISIS. ~Technophant (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks; I'm sorry I was short with you, but it seemed like a potential emergency, and I was afraid that you were intentionally spreading the name around. As I said at Jimbo's talk page, I wasn't completely sure that I was doing the right thing, and that's why I was actively looking for a response from the oversight people (I don't have that ability myself). Someone has since responded from Oversight, granting my request; only oversighters can now see these revisions. Nyttend (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ok. I didn't see your talk page post when I wrote this. I'm not aware of the discussions behind the scenes that lead to this decision, however you weren't trusted with oversight flag for no reason. It's a very unusual situation, but I don't think that removing the name here with make any real difference.~Technophant (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the point is it's not up to anyone at Wikipedia - yourself or anyone at Oversight - to decide if it will "make a difference". Rather we operate according to an "abundance of caution" when someone's life is in question. Technophant, you've been making some questionable edits that have been reverted by the community. Uploads like this image as a means of primary identification. The transcript of the beheading video ISIS propaganda. As Jimbo says, we are not "the media", we are a non-profit community run encyclopedia, the standards are not the same as the media. -- GreenC 13:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- User:Green Cardamom This conversation has largely been moved to User talk:Jimbo Wales. Yes I see the point of abundance of caution, however this isn't WP:NOTNEWS Wikinews style reporting on event, the report on reporting of event - something that WP does all the time.~Technophant (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Also, there's a difference between a user who likes to insert controversial material just because they like to watch the reaction and a user with proven history of trying to improve the coverage of articles like on this topic.~Technophant (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Adding IS propaganda material (pictures, transcripts) into biography articles is clearly going to be controversial. Related policy on this at WP:MUG. At least get consensus before adding it. The position of just "expanding coverage" is blind to the other issues that arise. Even if you disagree at least recognize how controversial it is and deal appropriately through consensus before adding raw ISIL propaganda into someone's biography. -- GreenC 16:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Also, there's a difference between a user who likes to insert controversial material just because they like to watch the reaction and a user with proven history of trying to improve the coverage of articles like on this topic.~Technophant (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- User:Green Cardamom This conversation has largely been moved to User talk:Jimbo Wales. Yes I see the point of abundance of caution, however this isn't WP:NOTNEWS Wikinews style reporting on event, the report on reporting of event - something that WP does all the time.~Technophant (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Successor or name change?
See my comment to Ghazkthul on his TP re this here! --P123ct1 (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Files for deletion
See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 September 5#Steven Sotloff. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
accident?
Did you mean to revert my change to the lede in [1] or was that just edit-conflict? Wnt (talk) 06:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Wnt: edit conflict. Sorry. ~Technophant (talk) 06:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād
You said on Ghazkthul's Talk page under this heading that the question of how ISIS relates to Jamat and Tanzim should go to the Talk page. I have added a comment to the first thread on this on the Talk page, and I hope people respond, as I think this is an important point. The Lead contradicts the names section as it stands at the moment. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Role of Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_David_Rohde
Read this and especially the section regarding the Role of WIkipedia. I think it helps explain their current actions. However in this case, it specifically states it was workable because there were no reliable news sources to cite, unlike this case, which has a multitude of reliable news sources. My request has simply been for them to have guidelines that reflect their actions, because as everything reads now all their guidelines permit it. An nothing on the page regarding Oversight referencing suppressing a name in public domain due to a life threatening situation. If they have a policy to not allow it, which apparently they do, it should be clarified so people can edit in good faith. Suppressing to this extreme is bizarre considering the amount of information in the public domain by reputable news sources. Their current policy on victimization is about how notable the vicitimization is, and whether or not it warrants its own article, or should be referenced in related articles. If wikipedia believes inclusion causes victimization and therefore should not be included, there should be some kind of obvious cite-able guideline. And then lots of article should be removed because they victimize. If its due to a life threatening situation, the oversight team should clarify rule #4 to include suppression of information that may trigger life endangerment or victimization or re-victimization. Because right now it doesn't say that, when it appears this is how they have been operating since at least 2008MeropeRiddle (talk) 06:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- @MeropeRiddle: Did you read http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/technology/internet/29wiki.html ? Seems like deja vu. The idea behind the blockade was to not elevate the value of the prisoner through publicity. I'm not sure what keeping the name off this one would do. Could do article like 2014 Islamic State kidnapping of British aid worker. 07:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Footnotes
I have put a template at the beginning of the "References" section in perhaps the vain hope that editors will take notice. Do you think this is a good place for it, or would somewhere else be better? I ask because I believe you have put in several templates similar to this and seem experienced in how to use them. If you can think of a better place, can you move it there, please? --P123ct1 (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
RfD discussion of Islamic State
- Because you have participated in the move discussion at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, you are being notified of the RfD discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 7#Islamic State. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Relevant article
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/jul/08/wikipedia-censorship-seth-finkelstein#start-of-comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeropeRiddle (talk • contribs) 12:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- MeropeRiddle I'm finding myself of tired of fighting this issue on principle. Unlike most issues which are resolved by consensus, this one was decided by a WP:CABAL of admins without room for public discussion. I'm sorry you got blocked for this, apparently without warning. Seem like a WP:BITE. ~Technophant (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Post surgery - 1 month update
It's now been 3602 days (days are auto-updated) since my back surgery. Unfortunately this last week has involved increasing pain and new numbness and tingling in my foot. I really hope this isn't failed back syndrome. I very much believe in the power of prayer and ask for your prayers and support in the coming months.~Technophant (talk) 06:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- The numbness of I was experiencing has mostly subsided. Thanks for all the prayers and support.~Technophant (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- I woke up this morning feeling better. I've started doing out-patient physical therapy. I think something I'm doing there has made a difference. I feel like I've turned the corner.~Technophant (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Foley (journalist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Disruptive editor
Time for another "Tangential discussion" template on the ISIS Talk page? More than half of the latest long thread had nothing to do with the discussion in hand. I believe you added one before. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- P123ct1 I've started a draft RFC/U here. Anybody (except Worldedixor) can edit it. Once I have two or more editors comment on it I'll move it WP space so it can be verified. Then the problem user will have a chance to respond.~Technophant (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- It's been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Worldedixor
Logos in ISIS
What a good idea to put in those al-Furqan and al Hayat logos! Will explain to thousands who have puzzled over what those strange markings are in the corner of YouTube videos to do with ISIS and other rebel groups! --P123ct1 (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you.~Technophant (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Found this at WP:RFC
Publicizing an RfC
After you create an RfC, it will be noticed by editors that watch the talk page, and by some editors in the Feedback Request Service who are notified by a bot. However, there may not be enough editors to get sufficient input. To get more input, you may publicize the RfC by posting a notice at one or more of the following locations:
- One of the Village Pump forums, such as those for policy issues, proposals, or miscellaneous
- Noticeboards such as point-of-view noticeboard, reliable source noticeboard, or original research noticeboard
- Talk pages of relevant WikiProjects
- Talk pages of editors listed in the Feedback Request Service. You must select editors from the list at random; you cannot pick editors that will be on "your side" in a dispute.
- Talk pages of closely related articles or policies
When posting a notice at those locations, provide a link to the RfC, and a brief statement, but do not argue the RfC. Take care to adhere to the canvassing guideline, which prohibits notifying a chosen group of editors who may be biased. Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Dougweller Thanks for the information. ~Technophant (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- And of course wait until it's official. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
2013 Islamic State kidnapping of British aid worker
I have reverted your move to mainspace of Draft:2013 Islamic State kidnapping of British aid worker and tagged the redirect for speedy deletion (WP:R1). Please gain consensus before doing something which violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the current oversight position. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Rudaw – ISIS
After someone gave "Rudaw" in ISIS a "who?" tag, I googled it and found the Wiki article Rudaw Media Network. I had already tried Wikipedia, but typing in "Rudaw" did not bring it up, although it brought up many other "Rudaw"s. Do you know how to fix this linking problem, or should I take it to the Village Pump Technical Help Desk? --P123ct1 (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- @P123ct1 It looks like you already fixed it. I looked at the reference and "about Rudaw" and found that the name is correct.~Technophant (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't fixed it. If you type "Rudaw" in the search box, it comes up with many "Rudaw"s, but not "Rudaw Media Network"! That is what I meant by a "linking problem". --P123ct1 (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- P123ct1 Need to have disambiguation then.~Technophant (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't fixed it. If you type "Rudaw" in the search box, it comes up with many "Rudaw"s, but not "Rudaw Media Network"! That is what I meant by a "linking problem". --P123ct1 (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I request an answer to my reasonable question =
You reverted my edit. In order to avoid an edit war, I was discussing your revert of my edit at [2]. I have been patient, and you are entitled not to answer, but if you do not discuss and give a logical justification of your revert and a responsive answer to my question, I will safely assume that you do not object to my reverting your revert of my edit. Worldedixor (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- Please see the following section and Gaz's comment "so it's the worst of both worlds" remark. He's an expert when it comes to jihadology, ask him.~Technophant (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
This article could use some help
It was originally written a couple years ago, and it has been added to today. I don't feel comfortable rewriting the whole thing, or even removing much... but I think it has some readability issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cantlie — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeropeRiddle (talk • contribs) 02:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
ISIS - Talk page
Did you see the IP's comments on the Talk page here, especially as regards the length of the article? I was wondering about the 2014 timeline as well. Surely it needs not to be duplicated in ISIS now that it has its own article? What was the reason for retaining it? Although Gazkthul has only had agreement from you and me and possibly Gregkaye (his answer is unclear), do you not think he should go ahead now and shorten the ISI section and give it its own article? That would reduce the "History" section considerably. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Isil
Hi! You participated in the move discussion that closed this week on ISIL (disambiguation). There is currently a discussion on where the title this was redirected from, Isil, should link to located at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_24#Isil. Please feel fee to participate in the discussion. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Al Hayat Media Center
I notice in the logo you put in for the Al Hayat Media Center in ISIS that the spelling is "ALHAYAT". The article has "Al Hayat" and the logo legend has "Al-Hayat". The two footnotes, not from the organization, have "Al Hayat". On archive.org it shows "al-Hayat" here and other spellings. I can't find anything definitive on Google. Do you know which is the correct spelling? --P123ct1 (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- P123ct1 The easiest answer is I'm not really sure. Gaz would be a good one to ask. 03:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
ISIS October 2014 timeline
At the end of the timeline entries, immediately after the last <ref></ref> belonging to the last entry and on the same line, this appears:
- "</onlyinclude>==References==<!--keep onlyinclude before references or it will break the transclusion of recent events in the main article-->
{{Reflist|30em}}"
This is somewhat confusing for non-technical types. At what point should the next entry be started? Presumably before the "</only include>, though this isn't clear. There used to be a kind of separator code at this point, on a separate line after the last entry, which made it much clearer. It might have been there and has got knocked out by accident. Could you add in something to show exactly where the editor should start their new entry? --P123ct1 (talk) 08:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- P123ct1Yes it does look strange, however if it's written as differently it will introduce an extra linebreak (not a big deal really). I added a remark before the line so that it's more clear on where to add more material.~Technophant (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
9 October 2014
I just reverted an edit you made changing many ISILs to Islamic State. You may not be aware of the many failed move attempts to move to Islamic State for the article and related articles. Continued debate toward using "Islamic State" has now been deemed disruptive and topic bans and other sanctions could be imposed. (not a threat by me, just trying to give you a heads up). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Proposed_move_from_.22ISIS.22_to_.22ISIL.22_in_the_article_text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#An_RM_to_ISIS.3F and look at the collapsed section. and editors are now being warned and one got a 3 month ISIL topic ban already. Legacypac (talk) 05:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Legacypac First, the discussion has been closed by whom? There's no signature or closing decision. I've been away for the last two weeks and did not see the discussion. And why is it collapsed? Also, this change has nothing to do with "end run around RM". It's just a common sense bold proposal. I've made a new proposal to use contextually appropriate names. ~Technophant (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- I looked into it and found that User:PBS had closed the discussion and changed the archive algo from 14 days to 3 days then 7 days. I missed everything due to this. There seems to be strong feelings from Legacypac that seem to be based on personal issues, not WP guidelines. Please also note that Legacypac's edit here with battlegroundish edit summary also removed a spelling correction. I don't like conflict, I don't want to edit war, and I don't want to get TBanned. There's civil ways of handing this. I think this issue to go to Dispute Resolution. 15:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Look at the top of the talk page for the pull down list of page changes. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Proposed_move_from_.22ISIS.22_to_.22ISIL.22_in_the_article_text where wide input was solicited and the conclusion reached we would be consistent with ISIL not "Islamic State". Look at the title of the article. If you want to dispute the title again, good luck. My attitude is not battleground, it is "let's be consistent". There is no point in having RMs and Rfcs to make decisions and than have editors just do whatever and threaten the editors with dispute resolution for sticking to the decisions. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Legacypac If you look I support a moratorium on article renaming. The proposed change of the acroymn does not mean that ISIL is the only name for the group. If that is so then you should go to the ISI section and change that acronym to ISIL too. Does that make sense? No. Please answer my question on the ISIL talk page on why you think the name "Islamic State" is "very problematic".17:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Look at the top of the talk page for the pull down list of page changes. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Proposed_move_from_.22ISIS.22_to_.22ISIL.22_in_the_article_text where wide input was solicited and the conclusion reached we would be consistent with ISIL not "Islamic State". Look at the title of the article. If you want to dispute the title again, good luck. My attitude is not battleground, it is "let's be consistent". There is no point in having RMs and Rfcs to make decisions and than have editors just do whatever and threaten the editors with dispute resolution for sticking to the decisions. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- I looked into it and found that User:PBS had closed the discussion and changed the archive algo from 14 days to 3 days then 7 days. I missed everything due to this. There seems to be strong feelings from Legacypac that seem to be based on personal issues, not WP guidelines. Please also note that Legacypac's edit here with battlegroundish edit summary also removed a spelling correction. I don't like conflict, I don't want to edit war, and I don't want to get TBanned. There's civil ways of handing this. I think this issue to go to Dispute Resolution. 15:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- I did not change the archive length to 3 days that was done by a different editor (to 4 days) and reverted by that editor back to 7 days. I set it to 7 days because at the moment there is over 20K a day going into the talk page. That meant that before I changed the time to 7 days it was over 450k which is far too large for a talk page for anyone on a slow link or a pay per byte tariff.
- The section to which you refer was there when you posted to the page 03:55, 12 October 2014 it was there when I replied at 13:14, 12 October 2014. It was still there when you next edited Wikiepdia at 21:25, 13 October 2014. So it was there for you to view and add opinions. It was not "It was archived prematurely" it was archived at 01:29, 15 October 2014 (less than 24 hours ago).
- I see you have edited User talk:GraniteSand but you have totally missed the point in the second edit link it has nothing to do with the edit clash that put back some words by P123ct1 which P123ct1 had removed. It had everything to do with the paragraph at the bottom of that link which starts "Warned? You seem to be under ...". Hence my detailed explanation and highlighting of several sentences when I imposed the temporary ban.
-- PBS (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- PBS Like I said, I've been out of the loop for a while, however what I've known of User:GraniteSand is that he has been a constructive editor in this area. There's a battleground going on, however I don't think GS is the problem. I'm sorry I accused you of changeing it 3 days. It really should have been discussed before anybody changed it, however I see that you were trying in GF to help fix it. You proposed the moratorium over 7 days ago there seems to only support for it so let's put that in place and hope it calms things down.~Technophant (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussion: Operation Inherent Resolve
A discussion in which you may be interested has opened here. - SantiLak (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Please read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general 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. PBS (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)