User talk:Legacypac

Welcome!

Hello, Legacypac, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Jokestress (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Seventh-Day Adventist issues

Thanks for your edits on the project. I have restored a source from the Hollywood Reporter that you removed at Angus T. Jones [1]. This is a reliable industry publication. Further, your edits to Seventh-Day Adventist-related articles suggest you may be connected in some way to that sect. That may make it difficult for you to be objective about such matters, and I encourage you to work with thers to ensure any changes are neutral and not based on personal beliefs. Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Response: As good as the Hollywood Reporter may be, the reverted citation was engaged in easily demonstrated inaccurate speculation about a living person (pretty common around celebrities, but still wrong). I edit topics I know a lot about including the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and have a very good understanding of what makes encyclopedic content. Further, Adventists are not a "sect". Legacypac (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC) (talk)

Wrong user?

Hi, Legacypac. Please see my talk page, you have mail.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Your username

I'm kind of surprised nobody else has brought this up with you yet. Your name appears to violate Wikipedia's username policy, specifically WP:ORGNAME, as it would appear to represent this organization. The policy prohibits names that give the impression that you might represent a group or organziation, even if you do not actually represent them. You can easily address this issue by filing a request at WP:CHUS. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Response: I'm from Canada and never heard of American Legacy Political Action Committee before today. I've used legacypac (pac being short for Pacific) as an online identity since 1996. I doubt anyone will confuse "American Legacy PAC" with "legacypac" as the American is the distinctive element. I actually tried unsuccessfully to combine accounts across various wiki sites into JadeDragon a while back. Legacypac (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess if I am the only one who has even noticed in all this time it probably is not an issue, they don't seem to have anything to do with your areas of interest here so the chance of being actually mistaken as representing them is minimal. PACs play an increasingly large role in american politics, so we try to stay vigilant when ot comes to them trying to spam here, but that is clearly not what you are here for. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of PACs generally, and love Colbert's PAC :) I doubt anyone will confuse me for them and if they do, they can change their name since I came first :) Legacypac (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You're at 3R with that photo. One more time and you'll be blocked. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Rich... considering Drmies public attacks on me and others and his own multiple reverts. Legacypac (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• It's a warning. That you're at 3R is indisputable, and there's no invoking IAR here. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• There is absolutely well established IAR on reverts on the page. Go read the archives from yesterday. Legacypac (talk) 03:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Pardon me if I don't trust your reading: you see the word "ban" in the above 3RR notice, and "threat" where it says "warning", just like you saw the word "suspect" in an FBI page that didn't contain it. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Are you really that blind? Go read the FBI page - transcript of the briefing. Listen to it too. Check any media site. Legacypac (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
      • You still don't get it. This is an encyclopedia. It contains statements that ostensibly reveal facts. Those statements have references. The references verify the statements. Duh. This particular reference didn't verify this particular statement, which I'm sure you only realized after I reverted you and you finally actually read the linked page.

        Your "advice" ("go read the FBI page") is about as dumb as what pops up in AfD all the time: "just Google it". No. Include the proper source. And, by the way, preferably in print--not an audio file or a transcript of a briefing where someone might have misspoken. It's really not that hard: they teach this in the last section of Freshman Comp, when they tackle the research paper. Except that in this case the unverified shit you stick in these articles is read by thousands, if not millions of people. It is entirely possible that you mean well, I just don't see much evidence of it since you don't seem to listen and you can't admit you're wrong. And before you start accusing me of whatever again--did you see this? You could have done something like that, pointing to the specific, reliable source that did verify--but all you got is "Google it". Drmies (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

        • • No I said go read the linked FBI source. Are you still disputing that the FBI called them Suspects on the linked FBI page in print, and verbally and repeated around the world? Legacypac (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Eh--they didn't name them "suspects" on that page, not at that time. So yes, I'm disputing that. Page looks completely different now, of course. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Valid reasons for undoing another users' edits

This is not one. You don't take the age of an account into consideration when deciding whether or not to undo it. Ryan Vesey 20:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Your edit here may very well be correct, but your summary doesn't make your point very well. A classic Wikipedia principle is "comment on content, not people"... this is somewhat exacerbated by the fact that the user in question is not a "brand new user": Xe has over 1,000 edits... unless you're referring to xyr newness to this article, in which case you might want to read up on article ownership; furthermore, you failed to respond to the points Axxxion raised in xyr own edit summary. I don't feel very strongly either way about your edit, but you're far more likely to not get reverted yourself if you address the substance of what you restored, as opposed to the circumstances of your restoration. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It was based on an error in where I clicked. I said sorry on his talk page right away. Legacypac (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Your work on the Boston Marathon bombings was outstanding and greatly appreciated. Nice work on the MIT Police article too! Hot Stop (Talk) 02:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for standing up to the idiots here

❁ ← I don't know how to make barnstar pix, but pretend this is one anyway.

I see you have the same problem as me, being suppressed and shouted down by wiki-retards. My guess is that they do it to sublimate their anger at being such wretched geeks that they're laughed at by everyone in general and girls in particular.

...Oh, and an extra barnstar: ❂ for not being an American. If you think "my fellow Amurr-kins" are irrational, wrongheaded buffoons on Wikipedia, just try living here. You have NO idea how lucky you are to be in a civilized country. Dave Bowman - Discovery Won (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. It's not really about you, but it does involve this nasty user award you have here, so just letting you know. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that I'm about to be banned from Wikipedia for calling Americans "irrational, wrongheaded buffoons." They're saying that the "no personal attacks" policy applies to the entire United States as a whole. That might sound like a joke, but they're serious. Are these people self-parody, or what?

Dave Bowman - Discovery Won (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

2011 unsolved 3x homicide =?=Tsarnaev bombers

Glad I saw your link to that 9/11/11 unsolved-triple-homicide before it got deleted; I did more research, went back to add facts & support, irritated yours deleted- should dispute if you have patience heh. Although a circumstantial association its compelling, fact based enough and can be further resourced.

All the junk they could have deleted like worthless page aboowwut canada's reaction (no relevance to anywhere or anyone).

Killing was on 9/11/11 (coincidentally to dzokrah's citizenship date), throats slashed, tamerlan seen referring to victim as best friend, fled to russia 6 months right after killing, weed spread on bodies (perhaps to look like drug relation...) dzhokar did smoke pot.

If i see you repost i'll log in and support it. can be a hassle with the power hungry tho.

-Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.232.157 (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the new section on the Bombings Talk page myself as I found an article about the 2011 kills started already. But thanks - The people who started the 2011 article did a great job building it very fast. Legacypac (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

ANI notification

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Just in case you are unaware - I have mentioned your name in the thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Heads-up

You're at three reverts on Boston Marathon bombings. I've come close to the line myself a few times on this article, and I haven't looked enough to see if I agree or disagree with your edits, but edit-warring blocks are pretty hard to get out of once you hit revert #4. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 18:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

A couple of the reverts were just removing new cite required tags and then putting in cites in another edit. Hardly edit warring. But thanks for the heads up. Also "Considerable leeway is also given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page." Legacypac (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh okay. If it was just a revert of convenience, so to speak, then it's probably not an issue. Still... watch yourself... with policies that can be enforced just by counting, people tend to get a bit unforgiving. And you raise a good point about that clause; however, while high-visibily certainly provides mitigation, it's worth noting that this isn't a featured article appearing on the main page, but rather an ITN item. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit

Hi Legacy. I was wondering why you made this change. It was perfectly proper, in its prior form. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought it looked better, but I've since read some policy on Wikidating that suggests 2012-13 is preferred on this platform. Legacypac (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with the policy, not that it matters ... , because I think the extra digits impart zero additional information. And take up space. Which wastes reader time. Inconsequential in any one instances, but across the project it adds up. Thanks again. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Personalization

Please avoid directing your comments to any specific editor, as you did at Talk:Boston Marathon bombings. Discuss the topic, not the editor. Cheers. Apteva (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments are noted as a response to another editor's comments is a very active thread. Legacypac (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not a chat room. Let me explain how it works. A says something. B says, A I agree but do you think something. A is long gone never to return. C comes by but does not reply because the comment was not directed to them, and nothing gets done. That is the wrong way to do things. Instead the way it works, properly, is A says something, B says, yes but this is what I think. This leaves it open for anyone, A or C, to come by and participate in the discussion. Never, ever ever direct comments to or about an editor on an article talk page. The place for that is on that user's talk page and on the various disciplinary pages such as AN, but even then only if it is relevant to the discussion. Discuss the topic, not the editor. Apteva (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

@Apteva -- I recognize that you have a few more edits, and therefore more experience, on wp than does Legacy. As a side note, however, I have my share of edits on wp ... more than you. So when you are lecturing another editor and say "Let me explain how it works" ... and "Never, ever ever direct comments to or about an editor on an article talk page" ... well, you are both being improperly bitey (very troubling to me -- especially given that you appear to aspire to be an admin one day), and ... in this instance ... incorrect. Talk pages, whether on articles or on userpages, are for talking. If one's comment is directed primarily at one editor, though in a conversation with more than one editor, it is both appropriate and far from uncommon to direct a comment at the specific editor. Where you arrived at your view of the world in this regard escapes me. Is it a guideline? If so, please point it out. Is it your experience? If so, your experience is more limited than mine, so perhaps that is why you are unaware of it.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOC, WP:NPA. It is consensus 101 to direct comments to the group, and about the subject, and not to the editor. Apteva (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

@Apteva -- in a conversation that involves many editors, when one wishes to as part of that conversation engage another editor directly, that is completely appropriate. As I am doing here. That's not a violation of wp:fock or wp:npa. And I could say this on an article talk page that involved more than one editor the same way I can do it on an editor's talkpage discussion that involves more than one editor. There is no difference. Did you just make that up? And assert it to a less-well-traveled newbie as though it was policy? Seriously ... it is bad enough that you are taking an officious tone, and with a relative newbie, but to make up policy like that is unhelpful.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, no. Here the topic is editor conduct. I did not make up WP:FOC or WP:NPA. In consensus development, comments are never ever directed to an individual, and only to the group. The reasons for that are quite obvious, and have been explained above in the A, B, C example. FYI, another method, parliamentary procedure, which we do not use, always and solely directs all comments to the moderator, and never to any of the participants in the discussion. The reason, though, is identical. It does not work. Apteva (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not consider myself a wiki newbie. I've been editing since 2007 with this account, plus use other accounts across Wikibooks, Wikivoyage, and a special interest wiki project. I focus on quality over quantity on my edits. This is a hobby for me. As a full time real estate developer my job is to read and interpret policy across many organizations. Only the editor who made unbelievable or hard to understand comments made by that editor can explain themselves. Weird that instead of addressing your hard to understand comments you came to my talk page to explain how thinks work, like I am some sort of child. Cheers, Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not weird at all. That is what user talk pages are for. It is not a serious enough infraction that admin attention is required, but article talk pages are only for discussing improvements to the article, and any discussion to or about an editor just does not belong there. Do editors violate that sometimes? Yes. Apteva (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

@Apteva. Of course you did not make up WP:FOC or WP:NPA. But, as I've indicated, you demonstrate here that you do not understand their application, which is quite another matter. And, as I said, it is completely appropriate to direct a comment to an editor on a talkpage, whether it be an article talkpage or an editor talkpage, in a discussion with more than one editor. Plus, I agree with Legacy's comments above, as to your editing.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks like this. a13ean (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The other editor insisted that it is plain fact humans and chimpanzees evolved from monkeys - I just noted he might be correct about himself without agreeing that his plain fact applies to myself :) Therefore I thoughtfully noted potential common ground on a hotly debated issue, which is pretty funny frankly  :) Did you not laugh? Legacypac (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks such as that are rarely perceived a "funny". Apteva (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

How is it an attack to agree with another editor's POV? Please go find someone else to harass Apteva. Legacypac (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Your recent editing history at 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Martin451 (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

No, revisions like replacing cn tags with references are fine. I'm just an active editor on this page. The person placing this notice has made a similar number of reverts on the same article - so if they want to pursue this they can expect to be blocked for edit warring. Legacypac (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Look at your Contributions, and search for the word undid. That is not replacing cn tags etc., it is replacing sections that are being discussed on the talk page, and against consensus. Compare them against my contributions, I am quite happy for an admin to look at these. I am warning you to think about your editing, not because I want you blocked.Martin451 (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

OR

You should be familiar with Wikipedia's original research policies. Knowingly putting unverified information into articles is a bad idea to begin with; the reasoning "look at him, it's clearly the same guy" is purely original research. Some guy (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The original contribution accurately reflected the source. That comment was only in a reversion note to someone who deleted the contribution without thought. The proper course of action by the person who deleted the contribution was to check if it was true, not delete directly but to verify and add a better source - which is exactly what I did myself. Thanks for your comment though, obviously we want to avoid OR.Legacypac (talk) 03:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --John (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The evidence in the article edits and talk page is you made an error in deleting a source but not the direct quotes from the source. Now you are threatening me with blocking over good faith well sourced (but unspecified by you) edits? Let's take it to arbitration right now. Admins are supposed to be helpful not go around putting unsubstantiated warnings on talk pages. Legacypac (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Legacypac. You have new messages at 2001:db8's talk page.
Message added 17:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

– 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Refactoring talk page comments

Hi Legacy. This is to make you aware that this edit you made has been reverted. While I understand your frustration, you generally can never remove comments from a discussion once they have been replied to because it throws the entire thread out-of-context. An alternative would be to strike your comments by using <s> at the beginning of text you want to remove, and </s> at the end. (Or, you can use <strike> at the beginning and </strike> at the end.) Here is an example of what it would look like: This is what text looks like when you strike it. In the situation with the thread you removed your comments from, the appropriate way of handling it would've been to either (1) just make a final comment that states your intention of ending your participation, or (2) simply not commenting in the thread any more. But simply removing all your comments obviously would be very confusing to readers because they would have no idea who or what the other editors are replying to. Thanks.--76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Most of the other comments were not replies, but attacks and tangents, but ya, ok. Legacypac (talk) 02:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Improper closes

Hi again Legacy. You improperly snow-closed two move proposals on the talk page at 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio with this edit and then this edit. They have been reverted. First, you cannot close a proposal if you have participated in it. Second, you cannot snow-close a proposal that clearly is not at the point of snow; Alternative Proposal 2 has three supports and four opposes. If you feel that a proposal should be closed, ask an uninvolved admin or other very experienced editor review it. For the record, I do not like either of the proposals you closed, but it's important that !votes are never shut down improperly. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi 76.189.109.155 I was just about to go to your talk page to discuss. Your count in the edit summary and above is different than mine and I see you reverted a SNOW close by [2] as well. By my count:

• Alternate Proposal (1)[Cleveland kidnappings case] (which I did not try to close) is at Proposer + 2 Support and 5 Oppose (including me)
• Alternate Proposal 2 [Cleveland missing trio rescue] has Proposer weakly suggesting a title, one "Support tentatively" and one "Support a title similar to the one above"; (neither of which are really Supports) and now 6 Opposes (I had put comment but had not voted - just fixed that. So without anyone really arguing for this title... I tried to SNOW Close it.
• Alternative proposal 3 [Cleveland Trio kidnapping] is based on 3 Suspects not 3 Victims. 0 supporters and 5 Opposes (including me) This was SNOW closed by [3] and unclosed by IP 76.
• Alternative proposal 4 [Ariel Castro case] has the proposer posting Support (incorrectly) and than 4 Opposes and one editor who wants to keep the current title (so another Oppose) and I commented on the keep current title comment but did not vote or express an opinion on the proposal itself. I tried to SNOW this one.

It seems very clear that none of these Alternative Proposals (especially 2-4) have a Snowballs chance in hell of passing, esp since so many editors support the Main proposal. Do you differ? As I never even commented on Proposal 4 (only commenting on a counterproposal) am I OK to close it boldly? The other one I had commented negatively on the proposal but not voted (until now). Legacypac (talk) 07:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Legacy. Look... you and I, and anyone else who has actively participated in the various move proposals cannot, should not, and must not close any of the proposals. And we especially must never close a proposal that we have !voted in or even opined in. It's highly inappropriate, a violation of involved, and would hurt our credibility. I agree that most or all of the alternate proposals stand little or no chance of being approved, but editors like us, who have clearly stated our positions, are the last ones who should be closing them. And if the proposals you closed stand no chance, then there's nothing to worry about anyway. ;) I agree that alt proposal 3 is the one where WP:SNOW clearly applies, but we would need a totally uninvolved admin or editor to close it; someone who has not materially participated in any of the current move proposals. Finally, editors must be extremely careful when invoking WP:SNOW. It's a very high standard. By the way, nominators of a proposal do count as a support !vote. I really appreciate your interest and involvement in the move proposals. Hopefully, the matter will be resolved soon. :) 76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

One other quick point. You made a Comment in alt proposal 2, which you then changed today to Comment & Oppose with this edit. But it should be one or the other, not both. Comment is only to be used when you are not !voting. So the way to do it is... when you make a comment only, but subsequently decide you want to !vote, you should either simply place your !vote at the bottom of the thread and leave the original Comment above, or just strike Comment part in the original post and add Oppose before it.
It would look like this: Oppose Comment Then, time stamp the post again with five tildes instead of the normal four (which will simply add the current date and time) to let readers know when you updated your post. So you can go there now and strike the Comment part. ;) 76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. Just trying to move this along to get the article title to something that makes sense. Not very experienced with closing discussions, just read the guidelines on how and copied what [4] did. Cheers, Legacypac (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I understand your impatience; the current awful title needs to be changed. Unfortunately, move proposals on high-notability articles take time. Don't worry, things will work out fine. And if a particular proposal truly doesn't stand a chance, then it doesn't really matter if it's closed or not. ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not crazy

If you disagree with me, drop the ad hominem attacks and discuss the issue on the TALK page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigiheri (talk • contribs) 16:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm sure you are not crazy, but your POV on corporate structure is a little crazy. From what I can see, every other editor is disagreeing with your POV. Legacypac (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the 2 or 3 people who disagreed are wrong. Have you considered that? You should because they and you are indeed wrong. Not only are shareholders generally not owners in America, they are not owners of German, French, and Japanese corporations. This is a general article on corporations, so we should consider these corporations too, right? The extent to which you believe something that is false is something you will need to come to terms with. Sigiheri (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "corporation, joint-stock company, shareholder, share, finance, corporate finance, and others". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! You may receive a duplicate notice on this matter as this one is being given manually because our bot is down; you may receive another when it comes back up. -- TransporterMan (TALK) 18:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You have been invited, so let's see your hard cold logic, with cites.Sigiheri (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sock puppet case opened concerning you.

I have opened a sock puppet case concerning you here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Legacypac. You comments would be welcome.Martin451 (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It is a false allegation, pure and simple. That many other editors have an issue with User:HiLo48's posts is easy to document. I've replied, and when no proof is found, perhaps you will come back and say you are sorry. Cheers, Legacypac (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• That SPI, right now, looks to be heading nowhere, but Legacypac, no more of this. Whether you mention HiLo by name or not doesn't matter to me--it's time to stop concerning yourself with him and, if you wish to be taken seriously as a Wikipedia editor, it's time to stop misrepresenting things: your reading of that ANI thread is hardly a good one. Please consider this a final warning for harassment. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Legacy would've been fine with that comment had he not included the last sentence. This feud between Legacy and HiLo needs to end now. Both have behaved poorly. They need to cease initiating any contact with or about the other. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)\

I have zero interest in further contact with that editor which is why I requested a IBAN. However, I did not start this sock puppet investigation, which is based on alleged similarities between what I wrote and someone apparently in Japan wrote. I think it is a very valid defense (and one of my only defenses) to point out that many other editors wrote similar things about the editor in question, and clearly these other editors are not all related. IF the IP is a sock puppet and not just a regular editor, that IP could just as easily belong to any of a number of editors expressing similar views (including several Admins). Further, I also looked where the IP has edited and found they have been on pages I've never visited before and topics I have zero interest in. Legacypac (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The SPI is of no relevance here. An interaction ban also means not even talking about the other editor, so if you wish to act as if there is one, you know what to do. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Legacy, HiLo did not start the SPI either. In fact s/he didn't even participate in it. I hope you'll takes Drmies' advice. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Abu Omar al-Shishani may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• reportedly being killed by Kurdish fighters at Mosul Dam in the [2014 Northern Iraq offensive]] on or slightly before August 7, 2014.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Move requested to make room for American operations in Syria

There's a move discussion at Talk:2014_American_rescue_mission_in_Syria#Move_request_-_9_September_2014 to move 2014 American rescue mission in Syria back to original title 2014 American operations in Syria. With surveillance flights ongoing and airstrikes soon to happen there needs to be a place to put this.~Technophant (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Could you provide citations for the countries you have added to the infobox today, please? When composing the footnotes, please use the Wiki Edit cite template method, and do not leave just bare URLs, as these are susceptible to link rot. When that happens the link will be broken and the citation will be unreadable. Thanks. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 The article itself has good cites for the countries added. Just turn on any TV or check any paper to see that UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan etc are bombing ISIS. What I don't get is all the opponents listed that are not actively fighting. Legacypac (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

All the other countries/groups have supporting citations in the infobox; this is a gap. The UAE isn't mentioned in the article yet. Someone may add "citation needed" tags and I was trying to pre-empt that. Just knowing the news isn't enough in WP. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who ads a cite needed instead of just adding a cite is wasting their time. Legacypac (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The onus is on the editor concerned to provide citations and a tag is better than a straight revert. But that apart, thanks very much for rationalising the Lead infobox and getting some sense into it at last. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the symbols you use in the infobox, $, is misleading. It suggest financial support, not military operations - that was what I immediately thought. Perhaps "m" instead? -P123ct1 (talk)

Ya, that is a good point. I was looking for something that does not have a wikipedia function like * does. I trimmed out everyone that was just talk, so now we just have different levels of military intervention, either fighting, bombing or supplying arms. 22:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Good job done! Thanks. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Have just noticed that your edit re Abu Omar al-Shishani didn't register, and there are no reverts of it registered. Software not working? --P123ct1 (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

1RR

Hello, you are the subject of discussion at the edit warring noticeboard here: [5]. DocumentError (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Where hopefully you will receive sanctions. Cheers Legacypac (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Blogspot

In situations like this you should take it to the reliable source noticeboard (RSN) and get their consensus. Once they investigate and comment on it in your favor, then you should add it back and i would also add a note in the reference that this blog spot link is an exception per the consensus on rsn to prevent it being removed again.

i dont want to use that blogspot source because i tried searching on internet for other sources claiming ansar al islam are opponents of isis but could not find it. So even if it reliable and an exception is made at the RSN, someone else may remove it for same reason

if you can find a source other than blogspot then i think it will solve this issue, i wont remove it again if you add another source other than blogspot. but if you want to add that blogspot source again please take it to rsn and get approval from there first please--Misconceptions2 (talk) 10:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your cleanup generally and I'm not too worried about this change, just wanted to give you the heads up that that guy has serious cred. He was the first to prove chemical weapons use in Syria. Interesting story. Also, I've just started a discussion about al-Qaida maybe joining ISIL on the ISIL talk page. How do we handle that?Legacypac (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

In case you are interested

The first ref I can find to 'self-designated "Islamic State”' is at: http://www.turkeyanalyst.org/publications/turkey-analyst-articles/item/333-ankara-pursues-persian-partnership.html .

Its use at ISIL is a strong contribution. Was it your invention? Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I have seen various media use the phrase, but that is a good article. Often the media uses Islamic State in the headline for brevity but qualifies it was "so called Islamic State" in the body, and then uses ISIL or ISIS for the rest of the article. Legacypac (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Its the problem of brevity when editors opt for shorthand for an easy flowing text rather than a fuller story. Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Your ISIS edits

First, thanks for going into the United Nations designation so thoroughly; you are quite right that the RSN only scratched the surface. Tbh, the RSN was not much help with a similar query we recently put to them about Israel's designation. Secondly, I owe you some sort of apology and an explanation. Sooner or later there was going to have to be a section on criticism of the Islamic State - this has been alluded to in discussion on other aspects - and today an IP has raised the same subject. Your edits seemed a perfect opportunity to open a section on criticisms, so I have done that and put into it your edit about Tony Abbott and also your edit in the Lead I rather high-handedly reverted yesterday. I removed the Lead edit as it was specifically about the name and the Lead is supposed to be a summary of the article as a whole. This new section seemed an ideal place to put it. I will put a note about the new section on the Talk page and of course anyone is free to question it or make adjustments. I am not particularly happy with the title I gave it, for instance, or its positioning rather late in the article, but at the moment I cannot think of the best place to put it, given the way the article flows. We are encouraged to be WP:BOLD and I certainly have been this time. I hope there are no hard feelings. Obviously you are free to revert what I did (but please leave the new section!) and I won't consider it as edit-warring. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen these edits. I think that the name is one of the most critical issues being discussed that it belongs in the lead. CNN for example is sticking to ISIS while people are talking about action against ISIL. Thanks for being cooperative. It is all very strange. Legacypac (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said. The new section is called "Criticism of the Islamic State". The widespread criticism and dispute is really about the legitimacy of the Islamic State and the caliphate, isn't it? The name "Islamic State" and whether that name should be used is part of that. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Article blanking

Hello. I see that you've blanked the article Siege of Kobane/Ayn al-Arab/, apparently intending to delete it. However, please be noted that blanking the article is not tantamount to a deletion. If you wish to delete the article, please nominate it under one of the WP:CSD criterion, propose it for deletion following WP:PROD, or (and this is recommended), nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD. Furthermore, the the title that you've moved the article to does not seem to follow our naming convention, particularly Wikipedia:Article titles#Treatment of alternative names. In regards to that, I will be assuming that the move is uncontroversial housekeeping and move the article back to 'Siege of Kobane,' as you recognized in this edit was the WP:COMMONNAME. KJ ^Discuss? 11:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The whole thing was so messed up, with a talk page detached from the article and circular redirects. I hope I have it fixed now so that everything is useable. The page blanking was only to deal with a faulty title I created myself. Legacypac (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Look if you want to be helpful, let us discuss here before you revert. Now you have two nearly identical articles at Siege of Kobane/Ayn al-Arab with the cleanups and the faulty title Siege of Kobane/Ayn al-Arab/ (note the /) without the cleanups plus whatever you did with the talk pages. Please fix it KJ. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

OK. It looks like you somehow moved the page previously at Siege of Ayn al-Arab to two different pages, Siege of Kobane/Ayn al-Arab/ on :31 and Siege of Kobane/Ayn al-Arab on :32. In this case, I would suggest that you nominate one of the pages for deletion (the latter, since I already tagged Siege of Kobane under G6 for the move from the former) under the WP:CSD criterion G6 (uncontroversial maintenance) and G7 (author request deletion). If that goes as planned, the page Siege of Kobane would be deleted, and Siege of Kobane/Ayn al-Arab/ would be moved there along with the page history. Then, if people disagree, there could be a discussion. If you're not sure how to nominate the page for CSD, just message me. KJ ^Discuss? 12:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC) I found a spaghetti bowl of redirects. If the article name Siege of Kobane/Ayn al-Arab is not acceptable (an attempt by me to create a compromise) than please initiate the deletion nomination so we can move it to Siege of Kobane. I just updated the / article with all the cleanup so it is good to move, and blanked the no / so no one edits it. Legacypac (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I was able to move the / article to Siege of Kobane, Syria. Later we can drop Syria from the title but at least it makes sense now. Appreciate the assistance. Legacypac (talk)

Kobane/Ayn al-Arab

I have replied on my Talk page. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at the Village Pump

Hello! This message is to notify you that there is a discussion at the Wikipedia Village Pump that may be of interest to you. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Might this edit to the ISIL article need fixing?

Hi Legacypac,
This edit: ISIL edit at 20:41 today looks like it may need some attention. Tks, Scott P. (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

ANI

A topic in which you may be involved, is the subject of discussion at ANI here. SantiLak (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 military intervention against ISIL, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iraq Civil War. 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, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Kobane

Hello Legacypac. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kobane, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I don't accept that this is uncontroversial, given the situation in Syria. This needs discussion on the talk page or WP:RM. . Thank you. GedUK  12:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ya there was no response to my request for discussion on the lightly trafficked city talk page User:Ged UK but the issue was discussed on the closely related page for the current battle here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Siege_of_Kobane where the decision was for Kobane based on a huge search result diff - we are just trying to line up the city page name with the battle page name now. Thanks for reconsidering. Legacypac (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I'm not certain of the best way forward on reaching a solution on this is, though I suspect WP:RM is as good a place as any. However, the nature of name changes in a situation like this, where there are multiple sources using various names, means it cannot be uncontroversial, which is what the speedy delete/move criterion requires. Even the link you provided shows an argument, and I wouldn't say there's consensus there at all, rather some people declaring one way or the other. GedUK  12:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ya the battle page has a stable title now, even with the city page hung up on the arab name. I'd not familiar with using WP:RM - just trying to clean up the big mess left. If Kobanê (with the mark) was cleared I'd move the article there and I expect it would be pretty stable given the battle page is stable now. Legacypac (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

""Ayn al-Arab" About 260,000 results - Kobane About 2,240,000 results says Google. Suggestions? Legacypac (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

ISIS vs ISIL

When they start using ISIL instead of ISIS full-time we can use ISIL than. However, per Wikipedia policy on common names, we use the term that is most widely used (even if its not the official term). And its not just CNN that is using ISIS. Just five examples of a quick search [6][7][8][9][10]. EkoGraf (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC) No question its a valid common term but so is ISIL see the talk page for some of the latest research. Not worth arguing over, or reverting each other over. Legacypac (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Linking

You do realize that all pages within Wikipedia can be linked to like you link to any article, right? So you don't have to format links to pages like Wikipedia:Notability as an external link.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes but there are certain community pages that I just can\t figure out what part of the link to cut out for a wikilink. Not very often, but enough to bug me. Legacypac (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

So long as the URL does not have php in it, you just start after "/wiki/". "_" becomes just a space, and whatever punctuation is in the section title or page title you can copy. Like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Abuse of Processes and Editors by DocumentError.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok a big thanks for explaining :) Legacypac (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		A barnstar for your work in cleaning up and reorganizing the page 2014 military intervention against ISIL recently. Good job! SantiLak (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Move

I'm not sure if you were planning on executing the move to 2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, but I would encourage you to wait for admin closure. It does look like the move has consensus, but I think it would be seen as controversial if you were to perform it. No offense intended. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

LOL hell No - I've been falsely accused of moving the article multiple times (I checked 1000 edits and months back - just a single move) Someone else can do that move. I just withdraw my alternate proposal on the name and closed discussion. Legacypac (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that's totally fine. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI see the warning on User talk:PleaseConsider -- PBS (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link and taking care of this matter. Cheers Legacypac (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Lists of references on the talk page

If you make an edit to a talk page as you did here which includes ref...tag pairs, please also include {{reflist}} in the edit so that the ref...tags appear within the same edit (I assume the lack of a signature was just an oversight). -- PBS (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

added reflist. Do you understand what I meant by ref...tag pairs? -- PBS (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You violated the 1rr

revert yourself or ill file a report. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Take it to talk please. You (or whoever tagged it in the first place-I don't know who that was) are not following WP:NPOVD. Legacypac (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That is an essay, not a Wikipedia guideline. You violated the 1rr, last chance to self revert. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no basis for the tag, nor have you stated why you feel the article title or content is not NPOV. Rather than threatening me, try to convince other editors on the talk page please. Legacypac (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Reported. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Undue Revert?

I will not edit the article. In my opinion as the edits to the article were not the direct cause of the ban they should be treated like any other good faith edit. Other editors may make the revert, but you must not solicit them to do so. Please read carefully WP:3RR and how it applies to WP:1RR. -- PBS (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that's why I asked. Thanks for your help. Legacypac (talk) 11:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested moves

Talk:2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq#Proposed_Move Convert this into an WP:RM and let an uninvolved editor (probably an admin) close it as all standard RMs are.

If you have any other outstanding proposed moves on any other page, convert them into requested moves using the WP:RM header templates.

In future always use the WP:RM process for any potentially controversial moves you wish to initiate. This is a standard Wikipedia method to handle controversial moves. Using other methods such as RfCs is discouraged, although sometimes a move is generated by an AfDs.

-- PBS (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Archive top

When using {{Archive top}} place it below the section header. If you do not do this the section header and the temple are likely to be mangled by the archiving bot when the closed discussion is moved into the archive.

Also for closed discussions of the type you have been closing I think it is better to use subst:

{{subst:Archive top|result=May had a little lamb}}

As this expands the template code within the page and makes it independent of any later changes to the template.

-- PBS (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for the pointers. I've just converted the Iranian-led intervention request. Legacypac (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

As a general rule you are using {{Archive top}} far too much on talk pages, particularly for discussions in which you are involved (See the first sentence in the documentation in {{Archive top}}). -- PBS (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate comments

With this revert you have embedded into the history of the article

Undid revision 629045539 by Ericl (talk) revert nonsensical renaming of a link - the linked article is about Iranian action in Iraq, not insurgency in Iran

This is unnecessarily provocative. All you needed to say was

Undid revision 629045539 by Ericl - the linked article is about Iranian action in Iraq, not insurgency in Iran

And then explain in more detail on the talk page what you mean. As it is you are likely to start a flame war because people do no like to be told that their good faith edit is nonsensical (there is a big difference between "I think it is a nonsensical renaming" and "a nonsensical renaming"), and as shown above there is no need for it. Remember the edit history is meant to be a message not just for one editor, or even the last 50 edits, but for people who read the page's history in a year or ten years time. See for example this article 10 years ago do you care whether any of the editors though an edit nonsensical or are the details of the edit more relevant?

Because you, as an ordinary user, can not strike out comments in the history of an article, think very carefully before you make what could be seen as a personal attack, as it's the sort of Wikidrama that no one needs and is totally unnecessary. To paraphrase one of the bullet points I recommended you read when closing the recent ANI of which you were the subject (Good practices for all talk pages used for collaboration):

• "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the message focused upon the details of the edit, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the article."

-- PBS (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and good point. I can really appreciate that having been on the receiving end so much viral. Legacypac (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Lol, Chill out dude. Yes you were arguing for consistency. Note as well I was arguing for consistency. My first comment was to make clear that 3 names for the Islamic State were being used in various places throughout the article. That of course is not consistent. As I said for alot of people this may not be confusing now but this inconsistency in the article may become problematic and confusing down the line. Your mention of the general sanctions did not apply to that situation and they only stand to make this already heated situation more heated. Was it 2 or was it 3 separate ANI's opened in one day about something on that article or related articles? Don't you find that ridiculous? You have a link to the consensus that It should be called ISIL. You don't need explain the general sanctions when you have that. That gives us a reason to use ISIL. Then you have your consistency and that also fixes the inconsistencies in the article that I have pointed out. Win, win, and then we can move on to another issue in the article. Like for instance you have brought up an issue with the map. Someone has changed the map to one that only covers Iraq. Does this new map meet your concerns? We have nothing to fight here. I'm only here to try to improve the article. I think you are as well. No offense. Truce. Or what have you.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I came across as cross-I have no issues with you. Just feel under attack recently by someone else. Yes lets be consistent. I made some edits toward that goal. The Iraq map is much better than the red ISIL map. I also took out the casualties that should not be listed in this article. Improve together right. Legacypac (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of the attacks and I completely understand. That's actually why I've reached out to you here. Someone sets up a Battleground and you get forced into a fort. You have nothing to apologize for there.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 Intervention

Hey Legacypac, I was wondering if you could help me out with there 2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. A user tried to mess around with the infobox and lump together Iraq and Iraqi kurdistan into the same section as Iranian led partners when they have always been separated. I changed it and the Iraqi forces are separated again but I can't seem to get the line to separate the Iranian forces and the US-led forces. Since you have done a lot of work on the article and seem experienced at this kind of technical stuff that I sometimes don't always get, I was wondering if you could help. I really appreciate you taking the time to look at my request. Thanks! - SantiLak (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC - Name of ISIS/ISIL/IS

There is currently an RfC underway here about what name/abbreviation to use for ISIS/ISIL/IS in the American-led intervention in Syria article. I am trying to get as many users to provide input as possible. I appreciate your contributions! - SantiLak (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

THE PEOPLE OF KOBANI LOST EVERYTHING. DON’T CONTRIBUTE TO THEM LOSING THE NAME OF THEIR TOWN

KOBANI: The Name and the Origin

I was born in the district of Kobani in 1946 and it was here where I grew up and where I attended school in the early years of my life, Kobani, a Kurdish town in Northern Syria, cannot be found in Ottoman archives. The town came to existence after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. It started as a station for the German engineers and the workers who were involved in the building of the railway line “Baghdad-Berlin” in the latter years of the Ottoman Empire. As the location was on a creek and near the railway station on the Turkish side, the French later used it as a settlement for their officers and the local militia, utilising Armenian and Kurdish experts/workers to run restaurants, teahouses and bars. The location even had a bordello, as my father and people of his generation told us. The French referred to the little settlement as “Company.” Later the Kurds called the place “Kobani” (derived from “Company”).

When Syria gained independence in 1946, the Syrian authorities called it “Ain-ul-Arab.” This name that translates into “Arab Spring” or “Arab Creek” comes from the Ottoman name “Arabpinar.” This was the name of the village east of Kobani, now a part of Kobani itself. The Kurdish name is “Kaniya Ereban” that again translates into “Arab Spring.” According to what we heard from the generation of our parents it was called “Arab Spring” because the Bedouins used to bring their sheep in summer to graze in the nearby locations and the spring (now dry) was the source of the water they needed for their sheep. This practice actually continued until the turmoil started in Syria about four years ago. The Bedouins who came from the south used to purchase the fields from Kurdish farmers after harvest to graze their sheep on them. It is unfortunate that some reports are full of misinformation about what is going on in Kobani. One mistake is the misspelt name of Kobani that appears as “Kobane” in some reports. Once such mistakes become widespread it becomes harder to correct. Therefore PLEASE spell the name correctly: Kobani.

Many thanks,

Chahin Baker, Kurdish Australian educator/writer/journalist (Shahîn B. Soreklî) 15/10/2014

This message taken from personal account of Shahîn B. Sorekli. So, please help us to correct the name of city as Kobanî or Kobani as it should be.--Laser Perşikita (talk) 09:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EU Council. 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) 12:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Syrian Civil War may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:56, 16 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.