User talk:Technophant/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Since I am restricted to only editing my talk page (and even this privilege has been threatened to be removed here and [ here]), I am forced to attempt to start an arbitration request on my own talk page. This battleground regarding alleged "fringe pushing" on my part has resulted in palm tree justice Topic Ban and multiple blocks by supposedly "uninvolved" admins persuaded by multiple "neutral" editors. I admit to tendentious editing, partly due to a temporary medical condition, and partly due to my conditioned responses to apparent wp:tag team edit warring/vandalism from my thousands of constructive edits and judicious edits as a former member of Vandal Patrol.

I was taken to 3R "court" multiple times and 'never have been found to violated the 3R rule. In frustration I took User:Jmh649 (Doc James) : to AN3R here for what appeared to unjustified reverts without clear justifications in multiple articles for reasons other consensus-based editing (ie removing valid sources without discussion of source's quality on Talk page). When I realized that I had brought this to the wrong noticeboard I promptly retracted with the statement "I've decided to retract this complaint and take it to more appropriate forum. - Technophant (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)". At this point I took this discussion to AN/I (here). This was clearly a mistake on my part I should have taken the issue to WP:DRN and if it could not be resolved there possibly WP:RFM. My original complaint was "User is removing cleanup tags without proper justification or discussion, tendentious editing, and wikihounding." User:Jmh649's reaction to this was swift and retaliatory. He brought up distorted information and suggested " would like to propose a one year topic ban from alt med of Techno widely construed due to his disruptive editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)" This quickly resulted in: Alt Med Topic Ban for Technophant?

What followed was a slew of supporting votes. Apparently I wasn't aware of the unwritten rule "Never take an admin to AN/I" (sigh) The discussion was left open for less than 7 hours, resulting in 16 yes votes and 1 no vote. The discussion was closed 10 minutes after the only no vote by User:Adjwilley who had previously suggested my topic ban on a user talk page.

'Note: WP:TBAN states

Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members. If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator notifies the subject accordingly.

I followed procedures and tried to formally appeal Adjwilley's closing decision as "over broad and excessive duration" but was rejected.

So, I'm left with few options. I have answered all the allegations of SPI. I had put the notice that this account was a WP:Clean Start account on my userpage, even though this is not required. I switched from my main account to this one not to avoid sanctions. I did so because I was threatened, insulted, etc. and was trying to get a true clean start to avoid my attacker. I also added User:Technophant formerly User:Stillwaterising to the WP:Med members page. The reason I removed these notices was due to User:QuackGuru's dogged canvassing and attempts to OUT me. If I hadn't been threatened in such a manner I would have not tried to hide my previous identity. Also, please keep in mind that my that the last time I was actively editing was March 2010 and certain policies such as canvassing, WP:MEDRS, and WP:FRINGE are are have either substantially changed or are completely new. All of my new starts edits prior to July 2014 have been unquestionably constructive, uncontroversial, civil, and unrelated to any alt-med topics. In conclusion, this has all been very upsetting. To have my contributions, reputation, honesty, etc. condemned by multiple editor is a far cry from anything I could have ever expected. I'm blocked, I'm shamed, I've been insulted, and told that I should be involuntarily euthanized ie *killed*. Why do I bother even bother to fight this? Because I care. There's a limit to the amount of abuse I can take though. This case needs to be reviewed by uninvolved mature arbitrators who can take a fresh look at a very unusual case. - Technophant (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I’m a little confused by a request for arbitration on a blocked user’s talkpage, but since I've been pinged, I’ll offer a comment. I tend to agree with Adjwilley, that Technophant's block shouldn’t be indefinite, and that it should be set to expire in a reasonable amount of time [1]. My understanding is that blocks are to protect WP and should not be punitive. An indefinite block here seems punitive. The user’s topic ban in alt.med seems to have covered protecting WP in the relevant and important ways. I’m not directly involved in any of the disputes, so it is possible I’ve missed something, but as far as I can see, the infractions that got Technophant in trouble since his topic ban were not edits to articles, but rather comments on talk pages and such in relation to concerns he has regarding general alt.med policies/issues and his concerns that an injustice has been done in his case. Such issues on talk pages do not require the same sort of protection/disciplinary action that disruption in articles does in my opinion. They do not seem to represent the same sort of threat to WP. Indefinitely blocking Technophant, and threatening to take away his talk page access, do not seem reasonable in my opinion, and could even present the troubling appearance of silencing Technophant regarding his general concerns in area of alt.med and any potential injustice that could possibly have occurred in his case.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@BoboMeowCat - Yes! I totally agree with your assessment. These blocks do seem to be punitive in nature and the alleged infractions petty and inconsequential. I would like to have my unblock request looked at and considered (in light of all information) and responded to promptly. - Technophant (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@BoboMeowCat, actually, the standard for when an unblock should occur is generally when there's no reason to believe that the problem will reoccur. Given that Technophant has violated his agreement to stick to his topic ban (which does extend to talk pages as well as articles) in the past, what do you think has changed that would make it unlikely that future violation would occur?—Kww(talk) 14:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Kww, I think you're trying to justify the block using the WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE clause. In Wikipedia, or indeed the world, nothing is 100%. How can the community by assured that you (Kww) (or any other user) won't go an a tear and start attacking editors other editors or causing massive disruption? There's no 100% way to say it won't, however take a look at "Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased or the conduct issues have been resolved. - Technophant (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I am requesting that the blocking admin, User:Kww, not be involved in this unblock request as per my right to request that "blocks can be reviewed by, and discussed with, a different administrator who is not involved, if requested." from WP:APPEAL. Kww's distrust of me has been repeatedly stated, and my attempts to reconcile this distrust have not been effective. - Technophant (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• I cannot deny the unblock request, per our policy. Nothing in our policies prevents me from commenting on your unblock request, and I still do not believe that there is any reason to believe that the problems that led to this block won't repeat themselves.—Kww(talk) 14:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

As you've been informed of before Discussion with the blocking admin would be nice. In this case the closing/blocking admin for the topic ban is Adjwilley, and he and I are working together to help define what is or isn't appropriate. I never wanted to step into this Battleground of "Fringe" alt-med. When I left editing in mid-2010 this battleground didn't exist, however there now clearly seems to be clear boundaries, declared combatants, and some occasional "collateral damage" to uninvolved editor such as myself. I can see that under the username Technophant with no apparent history of medical talk and suspicion of sock puppetry I was indef. topic banned from alt-med in a "summary execution". Now that it's known that I am/was a long-time member of wp:med, and if you look at Acupuncture's edit history you'll see that I have 28 edits previously as Stillwaterising with 4.5kB of added information, and only one slight dispute where I added the same information and followed the WP:BRD guidelines. The conclusion of that was to make the now deleted article myofascial meridians which, as the article creator and sole creator it could seem obvious now why I felt some ownership issues regarding it (RIP :-{). - Technophant (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I also just discovered (I wasn't notified for some reason) that there's a SPI investigation where I am suspected to be tied to Sockpuppet investigations/Klocek where Kww has already decided that any editor that geo-locates from San Antonio and has similar behavior should be blocked and that I am guilty until proved innocent (obvious from is repeated I don't trust/believe you comments). This investigation has not been closed and while I'm unable to defend myself (because of Kww's blocks) I know that if there's any fairness to the whole process it should soon be closed hopefully. Technophant (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Any particular reason that you didn't point out that you have already confessed to being every IP involved in that discussion? That your behaviour as those IPs is the direct reason that you are currently blocked?—Kww(talk) 15:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Kww,???? I've already admitted that I made the 3 IP edits from 2 different IPs were mine and I do recognize now that it was an evasion of the topic ban. The last IP edit was just meant to be a humorous response to my comment that I dislike editors who log out to make off-record comments. It was immature and unacceptable. - Technophant (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• RFC- I'm pinging some admins that either knew me as Stillwaterising or were involved in the 2010 ANI discussion regarding alleged WP:NLT in response to questionably legal images: User:SlimVirgin, User:Brandon, User:Golbez, and User:Dcoetzee. - Technophant (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Yo. --Golbez (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Golbez, in the 2010 AN/I debate referenced above you were advocating a block/ban on my part. I offered that I voluntarily back off. After this debate was closed, to the best of your recollection, do you recall that Stillwaterising or this alternate clean-start account ever show up on your radar for any type of similar infraction? I need to establish that I'm able to respect topic bans (or even threats of such) and able to change my behavior. Ty. - Technophant (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that event was the only notice I've ever taken of you. --Golbez (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Golbez. - Technophant (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• • I'm going to have to stay neutral on this one. My recollection of the events you mention is minimal and I have absolutely no idea what's going on on this page. I wish you the best of luck in finding a amicable resolution. Brandon (talk) 07:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
• @Dougweller - you are the only admin I'm aware of who regularly contributes to the ISIS (militant group) and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. I'm sure you've seen my talk page comments and article edits there as well as other Iraq/Syria articles. Is there any reason that you know of why I should be blocked as an editor as per Kww's block reasons (and unblock rejections) above? - Technophant (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Suppport unblock request: Since I began editing on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi pages in early June, I have found Technophant nothing but a helpful and vigilant editor who contributed a lot to improving the article, without any edit-warring or disputes with others. He always struck me as a good team member. So to learn about his current block and the reasons for it came as a very big surprise. I would like see him have the chance to return to editing and prove his intent to contribute in a constructive manner. --P123ct1 (talk) 06:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• To @everybody, I'm asking that this block end today. I'll stay away from all medical articles for now and just focus on trying to get back up to speed on the rapidly evolving situation in Iraq and the Levant. If I have any questions I'll ask a friendly administrator like Adjwilley or Doc James about what they think is appropriate regarding the CBAN. The idea of being blocked for 6 months or longer, perhaps is appropriate for teenager who is used be handed down suspensions and blocks and will just go find another community to disrupt while having some chance of maturing in the interim. I'm in my 40's and have a degenerative health condition. While I do expect to be alive in a one year, and if I can't be sure if I'll be able to think/type/read well enough to be of much use here if my condition can not be stabilized or reversed. I have the will and interest now and can't see any further justification for a block that isn't punitive. - Technophant (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support unblock request with the understanding that Technophant is going to stay away from any pages to do with medicine broadly construed. I'll add that I really know nothing about the circumstances that led to this and haven't read all of the above. I am basing this purely on my observations of Technophant at the Islamic State articles where he has been no problem. Technophant presumably accepts that there will be no second chance if he messes this up. I'm not unblocking because I don't know enough about the situation. Dougweller (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support unblock request per Dougweller's reasoning. And Technophant actually got unblocked only to be re-blocked a few minutes later for this stupid comment. To be fair, he wasn't talking about about his topic ban although he still commented in the area of this topic ban. I do not know how serious topic ban violations are supposed to be, but I'm sure Technophant has learned this lesson. As long as he avoids any medicine-related topics broadly construed, I support giving him a chance. It looks like Technophant has no interest in medicine anymore, and he had no problems on other topic areas. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree that it was stupid. Attempting to be humorous, not meant to be anything other than that. - Technophant (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Note to Technophant: I think you might be overreacting in your unblock request. Your block is for WP:TBAN, so you need to focus on convincing admins to stay away from your topic ban for any hopes of being unblocked. (Which you have, but there's too much unnecessary details in your unblock request.) Other than that, I don't know what else you can say. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Not getting a good feeling about this editor and after reviewing some of the history, generally feel they will be a net-negative. If there's going to be an unblock, would have to agree with the others commenting that Technophant would need to stay away from medical content broadly construed. Zad68 03:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Zad - If you really got to know me as a person and not a username I think you'd feel differently. I've been much more open about my identity this go-around than last. Also, legal decisions affecting users MUST be based on fact, not feeling. Just because I remind you of other users or sock-masters is irrelevant. I must be judged on my actions and not on "pre-judgement" (prejudice). - Technophant (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support unblock request - The user in question was subjected to some degree of intimidation and harassment, having to deal with direct personal attacks and provocative remarks such as "You are becoming an enormous time sink." as well as many covert attempts to intimidate, including offensive insults such as "That takes audacity and foolishness to a new level.". This does not excuse the user's behavior, but I'm surprised that the admins only focused on one side of the dispute and did not take action against the other parties to the dispute. WP:RFC/ADMIN may be necessary if this continues. -A1candidate (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree A1candidate Those diffs are only the tip of the iceberg. While Brangifer has spent hours collecting every diff he can find that he feels he can present to the community to show that I've acted improperly, I have not wasted my time to do the same in return. Perhaps that time will come. I have made every effort to be civil and have until recently tried to ignore the personal attacks and other attacks on my credibility, however some users have gone too far. User:BullRangifer's (block log) repeated attacks on me, concluding this statement "[[Involuntary euthanasia|They'd be better off]] if they stopped editing" in this diff is just small part of a series of personal attacks. It's a death threat (Involuntary euthanasia = somebody should kill him = murder) which should result in a swift punitive action. "Death threats and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning." I can come up with a dozen other examples where this user has attacked, threatened, or insulted me. WP needs to be a safe place to share. I have no clue as to why his disruptions are tolerated. I also can not find a precedent or justification as to why I am repeatedly blocked (and even having my talk page privileges being threatened) for the smallest infractions. It seem that civility, AGF, and sanity have all been pushed aside in favor of further battleground attacks. I want to call a truce and an end to all this chicanery. Even in the face of all these things, I have remained civil and have refrained from being abusive or insulting and that should be noticed. I've been honest to a fault regarding my situation, I feel that I deserve to be treated fairly. - Technophant (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: BRangifer's comment on my talk page was not a death threat any more than your "cease and desist" comment above was a legal threat, and I have already seen several users correct you on this point. Continuing to repeat this claim in the face of contradictory evidence is not helping your case. (It's also slightly ironic that you invoke WP:AGF in the same paragraph.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I think I've made it clear that I'm perfectly willing to put any and all conflicts in the past, as long as those users who have made personal attacks and been persistent in going after me also do the same. I very much hope this is the final word I must write concerning this. - - Technophant (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem. You need to put the conflicts in the past regardless of whether or not others do the same. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

You're right User:Adjwilley. I have stricken all inappropriate comments or accusations. In retrospect I wish I hadn't responded at all. I have a sincere desire to be left alone, to end all battles, declare a truce and to be given amnesty. I'm not here to get attention (positive or negative). I'm here to contribute. I prefer anonymity over notoriety and will resist any future urges to respond to any further provocations. - Technophant (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for striking those comments. It's much appreciated. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Adjwilley, you should tell that to User:BullRangifer instead. His personal attacks were not just directed at Technophant, but also against me. Besides making direct accusations, he made threatening remarks only a few minutes ago, telling me to "duck your head and stay quiet". How is that not an attempt to intimidate? He also made false accusations against me, but you failed to take any action at all. -A1candidate (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking me User:Adjwilley. I've archived old discussions and removed the 'considering retirement' discussions. I appreciate all the support I've received from you and others through this difficult time. - - Technophant (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back. Let me know if you wish my comments on anything. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Technophant, you know about computers, don't you? Something has gone awry with the text and wikicode on the Edit Page for the 8 August + entries, and with some of the footnotes (see "References"). Some of the edit text is reading backwards! Do you know how to fix it? I have alerted Dougweller and then thought of you. I was about to clean up the grammar in the new entries and got a surprise! --P123ct1 (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I reported it to the Village Pump (Technical) Help Desk and they've fixed it. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, there. I don't know if you're aware, but the clip doesn't work with Internet Explorer 11, though it works perfectly with Firefox. Just thought I'd mention it. :) --P123ct1 (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@user:P123ct1, If you go to look at http://www.xiph.org/dshow/ you should be able to download the ogg codec. If you need more help go to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Media_help - Technophant (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, though I was thinking more of the general reader. But perhaps most people with IE11 already have the right kind of software to hear the clip. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't do much about it. Ogg is the only format commons allows. - Technophant (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Per this discussion at AN/I, you are indefinitely topic banned from all articles and talk pages related to Alternative medicine and/or Accupuncture, broadly construed. Any violations of this ban will result in blocks. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. If you have any questions about the ban, please ask me or another administrator for clarification. (This ban has also been listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand, why would they ban someone from talking about alternative medicine? Did I understand correctly that this is why you are considering retirement? As a daily user of Wikipedia, I'm asking you to reconsider. The work you have done here is invaluable, please stick around, and don't let the A-holes win!! Peace and love! YS 50.53.148.252 (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Adjwilley&Kww- I took a look and can't find a template:TopBan or anything of that sort. Wouldn't it nice to have one? Where can a find the wording of the updated version? - Technophant (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I see it. It's in the unblock reason. I'll keep the template up on my talk page. - Technophant (talk) 05:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

While I've requested that several editor with who have violated my talk page guidelines published at the top of the page (with justifications) refrain from making comments here, I'm well within my rights to maintain my user page as I see fit. I feel that I've been very generous by allowing this "free speech zone" as attempt to allow discussion to continue without disrespectful editors spreading their dross anywhere and everywhere, thereby causing disruption to some important discussions.

None of the editors that I've sanctioned (all non-admins) are "critical" to either my block/ban discussion nor discussions regarding WP:Iraq, WP:Aviation, or WP:Islam. BullRangifer's detailed and time intensive analysis of every legitimate refraction/cleanup I've ever made is frankly disturbing. Please, please, please take a look at BoboMeowCat's comment and Adjwilley's concurrence to this comment: "There seems to be a lot of bad feelings here on all sides and I think at this point it might be helpful if all involved removed each other's talk pages from their watchlists as a proactive step toward ending all this ongoing drama."

I strongly urge all editor sanctioned above to follow this advice and unwatch my userpage and pages that I may edit that are out their scope of their typical interests. If there continues to be problems with editors not respecting basic principles of civility and good faith it's quite possible this page may be fully protected to help stop the madness. Sincerely, Technophant (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I am one of the top contributors to the controversial militant group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) and its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Since I started editing the page in on June 15th I've had nothing but positive experiences with the other contributors to the article with zero edit wars or other conflicts.

I've also been diligent in trying to prevent potentially unreliable information such as fake Snowden leaks from getting included in the discussion as seen here: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Alleged Snowden leaks - Technophant (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		I hope this bit of encouragement makes you feel less unnoticed for your recent constructive edits --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems like it would be a good idea to visit the wording of your topic ban, since there seems to have been confusion on this point. The original wording said "articles and pages" which is more narrow than the community's norms for topic bans. I apologize for the trouble and confusion that has caused you. Here is a wording that more accurately reflects how topic bans are interpreted:

Per consensus at ANI, User:Technophant is indefinitely topic banned from all edits related to Alternative medicine, and specifically Acupuncture. Any violations of this ban will result in blocks. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. Any questions about whether an edit will constitute a topic ban violation should be directed to an administrator before the edit is made.

Thus, an acupuncture related edit to a non-alt-med-related page would still be a violation of the topic ban. Basically, we want you to leave the subject area alone entirely. (User:Dennis Brown said as much in his comment here.) Does that make sense? Once you confirm you understand and agree to a revised wording, and after concerns about your alternate account have been resolved (you need to pick one account and use it exclusively!) I plan on unblocking you, since the edits you made yesterday (with the exception of the one you said you made accidentally to Talk:Acupuncture) were at best borderline violations of the original wording. I will await the comments of you and other interested parties on the revised wording. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I think your original wording is less ambiguous than you do. If you want to be more precise, I would change "specifically" to "including" in your description above.—Kww(talk) 16:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@Adjwilley, I think that's a better edit, however I would like to bring this to the table: "Per consensus at ANI, User:Technophant is indefinitely topic banned from all edits related to Alternative medicine, and specifically Acupuncture. Violations of this ban may result in blocks. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. Alternative medicine can be defined by reliable sources secondary sources such as [http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/consumer-health/in-depth/alternative-medicine/art-20045267 National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM)] and the Mayo Clinic. Any questions about whether an edit will constitute a topic ban violation should be directed to an administrator before the edit is made."

This revision is instead of being more restrictive it is instead more informative and will be less discouraging to WP:NEWCOMER while being more clear and less intimidating. I'm gathering that you want to put together a better way of topic banning disruptive users in the future and I'm willing to assist in this effort. I suggest putting together a guideline (ie WP:WHATISCAM) that clearly and unambiguously defines which topics are alternative medicine, which topics are complimentary medicine, and which topics can be construed to be wp:fringe. - Technophant (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Since that source defines "complementary" medicine as an approach that combined alternative and traditional medicine, it comes under your topic ban. You've also attempted to remove the "broadly construed" language. I think you miss the point. The point is to prevent you from making any edit which relates in any way to alternative medicine, any edit to our policies and guidelines on alternative medicine, or discussing anything, anywhere, that could possibly be construed as related to alternative medicine or our policies and guidelines related to alternative medicine. Your suggested rewording does not accomplish that.—Kww(talk) 04:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Kww Isn't there already categories containing articles that considered to be alt-med? Let's drop my wording if you really bother you, but I didn't find anything that was reliably accurate. The problem b4 was I was getting warned for even mentioning the topic ban. If I can't even talk about the topic ban with an admin or another user (in a non pushing sort of way of course) then I that would be intolerable. (Try to imagine the same kind of thing be put upon yourelf). If there is I'll go by that list as an exclude list. I also can live with broadly construed with this important (to me) wording:

Per consensus at ANI, User:Technophant is indefinitely topic banned from all edits related to Alternative medicine, and specifically Acupuncture. Any violations of this ban will result in blocks, except where excepted by WP:BANEX. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. Any questions about whether an edit will constitute a topic ban violation should be directed to an administrator before the edit is made.

- Technophant (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

In my haste to get a 'version out the door' I forgot to include the minor wording change "Per consensus at ANI, User:Technophant is indefinitely topic banned from all edits related to Alternative medicine, and specifically Acupuncture. Any violations of this ban can result in blocks, except where specifically excepted by WP:BANEX. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. Any questions about whether an edit will constitute a topic ban violation should be directed to an administrator before the edit is made." I see that this will prohibit me from doing certain things I used to be able to do without and controversy such as any semi-automated editing such as Huggle vandalism patrolling or using a Bot to edit lists of categories. - Technophant (talk) 08:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I now wish I had responded to your request for help with the Acupuncture article. It was not that I did not want to help, but rather that I know next to nothing about the subject and am heavily involved with ISIS and al-Baghdadi stuff (those b footnotes, which are nearly all incomplete, and some of them plain wrong), so did not respond. I was going to say then that I sympathize with you over the treatment you are getting on that subject, because it is my strong impression that Wikipedia is obstructive and difficult about so called "fringe" medicine and almost anything related to it. I wrote a long post some time back letting rip about this on Wikipedia but now cannot find it. It is not from personal experience, but what I sense others who try to edit on these subjects experience. Please do not give up. Your help and work on the ISIS and al-Baghdadi articles has been immense and valuable, to everyone, and you are vigilant, as I try to be as well. It is alarming how things can slip in unnoticed, which is why I always check the latest on the View History pages to see all is well (as far I can tell from my limited knowledge). I would not be surprised if your trouble stems from the subject rather than your editing. Now to what I really came here for:-

@Technophant You asked me some time ago about how notification of messages works now. This is the answer I have just had on the Village Pump Help desk to a query I had which I thought might help:-

If a message is left on a general Talk page or Help desk for a particular user in this form, @Username:, is the user automatically alerted that they have a message? --P123ct1 (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1: Yes, provided that (a) the link to the user's home page (which might be in the form of a {{replyto}}) gets added in the same post that your signature was added and (b) at Preferences → Notifications they have "Mention" enabled (for either Web or Email); if it's enabled for web only, they also need to have "⧼echo-pref-new-message-indicator⧽" (on the same page) enabled. More at WP:ECHO. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

One excellent way of getting a user's attention who may otherwise be swamped with mentions is to Thank them for one of their contribs. It builds good will and recognition and will stand out among the din.

I hope this ban is not universal. You would be sorely missed on the ISIS and al-Baghdadi pages. If there is anything I can do to help support you, please let me know. Keep your chin up! --P123ct1 (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

PS I will try to find my post on alternative medicine. I think Wikipedia are heavily biased against it, whatever they may say, which definitely flouts NPOV. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, please do.Technophant (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, however I do have a knack for legal issues and did quite a bit of work on wp:law re constitutional and case law. If this were a case in a court of law it should be thrown out without prejudice, ie no finding of fault being issued on the plaintiff. If there's a miscarriage in justice, an appeal can be made an easily won, with possible findings of misconduct being filed to the witnesses who provided false depositions.

The former result is obviously preferential. If the finding is a dismissal with prejudice there will be a mark in the public record that the block was warranted the patronizing and often inaccurate warnings will stain on my reputation forever. - Technophant (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think anyone would ever get anything better than palm tree justice from Wikipedia, with the all-powerful judges being the administrators. : ( --P123ct1 (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be an important and not readily transparent policy on how to bring up issues regarding reporting admins. I really do hope this block is resolved swiftly and fairly. It seems surreal... (:-X) - Technophant (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I started a post at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Disability and other legally protected characteristics not protected here to help make sure that the Foundation's Non-discrimination Policy protects persons with disabilities. I'm very passionate about this. It needs to be clarified and enforced. ~Technophant (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm in my second week of recovery from a dual-level TLIF lumbar fusion. It's great to the nerves decompressed (and I'm a half-inch taller), however I greatly underestimated how painful and difficult the recovery from this can be. I'm very limited right now as to how long I can stand at the computer. Until I get a replacement laptop screen I'll just need to ration my time and energy. Wikipedia comes second to replying to emails and taking care of myself. I'm inflamed, sore, and hurting not just physically but mentally too. Until the bones actually start to fuse and painful motions are restricted I can expect more pain. I'm working with physical therapists to help stretch and strengthen my hip/core muscles and relearn posture etc. ~Technophant (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back, Technophant, and I hope your recovery is speedy. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

My best wishes. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I made an animated gif out my last pre-surgical MRI images. Once I get the disc for my post-surgical CT scans I can make one for that too. ~Technophant (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Why the name "Melek Taus" written in Arabic in brackets? The Yazidisdo not write in Arabic. NightShadow23 (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

NightShadow23 - My limited knowledge is that while some Yazidis do read and write mostly the common language is Kurdish. However, since the Iraqi Kurds live in a Arabic language state there's common mention of them in both languages. I recommend posting the Kurdish (or Indo-Iranian) script along side the Arabic. If you still strongly feel that it should be removed please post this question to Talk:Melek Taus. ~Technophant (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Technophant, thank you for all your contributions to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant! I came by to ask a question about the 2014 American intervention in Iraq; I noticed that the added content expands the conflict and American intervention part of it beyond Iraq and into Syria so I am thinking of a rename perhaps? I'm not much of an expert on this topic but you are, so any thoughts? On second hand I noticed you are going through health issues, hope all is well, recovery can be a tough phase following a major surgery! Be strong, don't let it take the most of you and I hope you get well soon and back to frequent wiki-editing! (: --Acetotyce (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Acetotyce Thanks for the support. How suggesting a move to 2014 American intervention in Iraq and Syria or 2014 United States intervention in Iraq and Syria? ~Technophant (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, sounds good! thanks for the advise, there was a discussion to rename the article from 2014 American intervention in Iraq to 2014 United States intervention in Iraq but there was no consensus... Your choice of 2014 American intervention in Iraq and Syria is perfect! --Acetotyce (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Acetotyce Since Russia and other countries are, or soon will be, involved how does 2014 international intervention in Iraq and Syria sound? On second thought that's too broad, considering of the neighboring countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia plus UN countries. In WWII there was a clear label of Axis and Allieds. No such titles here yet. ~Technophant (talk) 11:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It already seems that most if not all NATO countries support military action against ISIL, and now Russia showing support too... But from the way I see it America appears to be leading the brunt of the support with Airstrikes supporting Peshmerga and PKK forces, if Russia or the UK which will later prove to play an important role in this war were to step in with more force then a rename to that is appropriate. On the otherhand the article is now under a rename with Syria added to the title, so if another party were to step in, they must do so in Syria aswell for the rename to take place. That is if it does get renamed! Thanks. --Acetotyce (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

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. Bishonen | talk 20:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen How in the world can a civil group of editors deal with such an uncivil one if there's no way to communicate? ~Technophant (talk) 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. Bishonen | talk 21:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC).

@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. ~Technophant (talk) 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. Bishonen | talk 21:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC).

It's kind of crazy what you can and can't get away with on here. ~Technophant (talk) 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. 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. ~Technophant (talk) 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. Dougweller (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

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. - ~Technophant (talk) 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. ~Technophant (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

See my comment to Ghazkthul on his TP re this here! --P123ct1 (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 September 5#Steven Sotloff. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

Did you mean to revert my change to the lede in [4] 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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 don't know how to do it. Should I take it to the Village Pump Technical HD? --P123ct1 (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1  Done~Technophant (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Tx! --P123ct1 (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You reverted my edit. In order to avoid an edit war, I was discussing your revert of my edit at [5]. 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)

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)

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)

It's now been 3637 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)

Physical therapy does help, if you keep that persistent, you will be recovering but it will take effort. Don't give in, I pray for and support you. Get well soon. --Acetotyce (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks. Very clear now. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)