User talk:TeddyBear01

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice of ISIL related discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Notification
I have reported your 1RR infringement at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  17:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Kudos to you
Hi TeddyBear01,

I don't know if you have any idea how happy I am to see your recent responses. I've been busy this afternoon (UKtime) so had not seen your edits til now. Obviously I have my views on things and I'm not expecting that we will generally agree on things, that's just the way of editing, but I truly appreciate that your strength in your open presentation. One of the values, believe it or not, that I try to live by involves the ready use of the ability to say that I'm wrong and, away from the issue of jihadism, I hope that you will also see that in me. I have great respect for you and your recent response. I have long lived by the principle that I will see that bit more potential value in listening to people when I hear them say, about any personal topic and by any sequence of wording, "I was wrong". It then gives me more confidence in what they say is right :)

The other reason for me mailing you relates to Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and I would have contacted you about this pretty much regardless of how you responded. Particularly after seeing your response I imagine that you meant well with this but none the less your opening remarks are a distortion. For instance your opening remarks include the phrase "Me and most users (with one exception) have made it clear." Honestly you don't know how lonely it had been on the page and this is mainly down to the stance that I have taken. However, as you continued to edit war against a number of editors who edited in ways contrary to what you stated to be clear, you would have seen this to be untrue. I just want to give you a private heads up just by way of giving choices. This is something that I would take issue with on the talk page but genuinely want to reduce public unpleasantness where possible. There is enough public unpleasantness in what we learn about this group in I&L and less on the talk page can work too. This is not a request but a heads up. The "The word "jihad",.." text has been up for a while and will have already done, from my perspective, a fair bit of damage. If any amendment was made I would make a comment of appreciation that you had made changes, nothing more than that.

I hope you feel alright about that last bit. As for me I wish that all issues could be resolved as well as current issues already have been. As you may have gathered I am no stranger to disagreement with other some other editors due to potentially controversial views and that's fine. None the less there can still be respect. I have often had agreement with editors or respectful disagreement. However, from my perspective there have also been editors that: refuse to answer questions etc. and who will only get in contact in the attempt to deliver what I consider to be cheap shots. Obviously this may be my own biased point of view but all that is really there to provide a context as to just how much I really, really appreciate your response.

I will also respond on the talk page and with pure laziness lol may use some of the earlier text.

Gregkaye ✍ ♪  18:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Gregkaye:

I am very happy to get this message from you and I appreciate it a lot. I want to say sorry for misrepresenting you when I said you were against me. Sadly I was wrong and I got you wrong. We may disgree, but it's clear we both want to improve this article.

I hope from now on we get along, respect each other as we respect ourselves and reach a consensus to improve this article.

Best regards. :) TeddyBear01 (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * TeddyBear01, It's all good stuff. Any further thoughts about an edit to the criticism and disruption thread?  Its been displaying that content for over a week.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  23:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, Gregkaye. I think we should finish this pointless dispute. My stance about the word "jihadist" agrees with the consensus, and about criticism on the lead my stance is clear. Let's wait for the consensus in order to add anything. TeddyBear01 (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * TeddyBear01, you have placed the words defamation and defame five times on the talk page when what I have done is legitimately highlight your clear breach of 1RR, your consistent and unilateral rejection of additions of a wide range of editors and I have opposed one of your additions which was the wrong edit performed in the wrong way. You have misrepresented both the level of support for criticism in the lead and me.  When confronted with the fact that they had been involved in misrepresentation many editors would edit back from false reporting.  You had and have this option.
 * Anyway, I hope you have been well in all the time you have been away recently. How convenient that you return at this particular time.
 * Gregkaye ✍ ♪  23:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Gregkaye, the Admin found it was not clear if I had violated the 1RR, and he found we both were right on the edge. I was wrong when I said that most users didn't support criticism on the lead. I am sorry. As you can clearly see, I am willing to reach a consensus. I don't think criticism should be on the lead, but I'm willing to agree with it in order to reach a consensus. Why do you want this pointless dispute to go on? Let's get along please. TeddyBear01 (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As you seem so unclear on the ruling, read: WP:1RR. You argue with misrepresentation.  You negate the efforts of other editors.  You refuse to retract.  Why do you want to defend these behaviours?  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  00:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Gregkaye, I am not arguing with misrepresentation, I am not negating the efforts of other editors, and I admit my mistakes and say sorry for them. You know, I am not perfect; no one is. I thought your message was a reconciliation message, that you wanted to get along. But sadly it seems why don't want to end this pointless dispute. TeddyBear01 (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I have just sent this to the arbitration commitee
Misrepresentation, manipulation of situations to push editing agendas and accusations of defamation

My situation comes in the context of my pushing for edits in the article "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" involving a wish to provide some kind of qualifying statement when Wikipedia uses its voice to declare the group to be jihadist. A very large section of Islam has a view of the Islamic defensive principle of jihad that is very different from the view of jihad held amongst supporters of ISIL.

In the context of this dispute with limited scope, editor TeddyBear01 started the strongly worded thread  The word "jihad", criticism and disruption which presented me as being the only editor supporting having criticism of ISIL which both misrepresented me and a commonly supported editing position.

The criticism of IS should be on the criticism section. Is that difficult to understand? Me and most users (with one exception) have made it clear.

So the "Muslims have criticized ISIL’s actions, authority and theological interpretations." has no place on the Lead.

By Muslims? Ok, which Muslims? Islam and Muslims are not a monolithic bloc. Some agree with IS, many don't. IS has also been criticized by Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists, etc. Do we state it on the Lead, too?

Criticism of IS by Muslims is clearly stated on the criticism section, along with all other criticisms, and where ALL criticism should be (the section exists for that!)

I have removed it from the Lead. Let's keep this article clean and arranged. The Lead is not for stating any criticism from any source.

And about the usage of the word "jihad", there is a lot of debate between Muslims -and non-Muslims- and Muslim clerics and scholars about the meaning of this word. So that what IS is doing "is not jihad" is a subjective personal opinion and not a fact. Most sources use this word to describe IS' actions, and it's the word IS itself uses, along with its supporters and other Muslims.

There have already been long and strong discussions about the usage of this word on this article, and the conclusion was that the usage of this word on this article is not incorect at all.

So this word should not be removed, as a user is doing again and again, and there shouldn't be small notes along with this word on the Lead reading that some argue IS is not a jihadi group.

Disruption can't go on. This user has been warned several times, and he keeps disrupting the article. I think something should be done.

This is an encyclopedic article, not propaganda or an opinion piece. Wikipedia is not a platform for expressing personal opinions. This article should be objective, clean and arranged.

TeddyBear01 (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The indication, which has been on display to readers for over a week now, contains text such as "Me and most users (with one exception) have made it clear." This is basically a statement to say, despite the fact that my argument related to the desire for qualification to be given to one word, that all editors other than me wanted to have criticism removed from the lead. This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and this would have become increasingly apparent to TeddyBear01 as x/he continually reverted edits of a variety of editors who attempted to return criticism into the lead. I have requested TeddyBear01 to edit this text but to this point this has not happened. In the context of content such as this having been on display for this period of time I find it inappropriate for the edit links and commentary to be left collapsed. The claim is made that I am the one person objecting to criticism in the lead and clear evidence of a variety of editors making attempts to add critical content to the lead has been hidden from sight. In line with WP:TPYES I am happy for relevant content to be altered but object to the collapse of the content. I would appreciate advice on ways forward on this.

The content that I presented reads:

Compare and contrast!
 * Revision as of 22:49, 19 October 2014 TeddyBear01 enacts wholesale removal of the second paragraph of the lead complete with its 7 footnotes
 * Revision as of 12:10, 20 October 2014 Jason from nyc adds: "Muslims have criticized ISIL’s actions, authority, and theological interpretations." stating, "The lead should summarize "prominent controversies" per WP:LEAD"
 * Revision as of 06:47, 21 October 2014 Gregkaye adds "[b]" - efn|Islamic criticism of ISIL has included comment by Sunni scholars that sacrifices of ISIL are "not Jihad at all.".
 * Revision as of 12:10, 21 October 2014 TeddyBear01 reverts edits of Jason from nyc and Gregkaye
 * Revision as of 16:48, 21 October 2014 Jack Pepa adds: "More than 120 Islamic scholars have indicated ISIS to be Khawarij" to beginning of last para of lead and provides two citations.
 * Revision as of 01:07, 22 October 2014 P123ct1 adds: "[b]" - efn|Islamic criticism of ISIL has included comment by Sunni scholars that sacrifices of ISIL are "not Jihad at all.".
 * Revision as of 09:55, 24 October 2014 TeddyBear01 reverts edits of Jack Pepa and P123ct1
 * Revision as of 08:34, 25 October 2014 P123ct1 adds: "Muslims have criticized ISIL’s actions, authority and theological interpretations." to last para of lead
 * Revision as of 08:45, 25 October 2014 P123ct1 adds: "[b]" - efn|Islamic criticism of ISIL has included comment by Sunni scholars that sacrifices of ISIL are "not Jihad at all." and states: "Restored efn footnote (please see Talk page for reasons)".
 * Revision as of 15:03, 25 October 2014 Comitus qualifies to: "Some Muslims ..."
 * Revision as of 23:44, 25 October 2014 Thegreatmuka amends qualification to: "Many Muslims ..." and states: "Changed "some" to "many" in order to avoid interpretation that "most Muslims do not criticize.""
 * Revision as of 13:50, 26 October 2014 TeddyBear01 reverts P123ct1 and removes reference to "Muslims" from lead. ALSO ADDS: a three times cited reference to Israel in opposition.  This is despite the fact that Israel's only actual involvement has been the provision of information and that the many of entries of nations that have actual physical involvement are uncited and, in total, there are more participants mentioned than there are citation refs added.
 * Revision as of 13:50, 26 October 2014 TeddyBear01 reverted P123ct1 and removed reference to Muslims from lead
 * Revision as of 16:25, 26 October 2014 Gregkaye edits and states in notes: "is a Sunni, extremist, unrecognized state and self-proclaimed jihadist caliphate in Iraq and Syria in the Middle East as per talk page" THIS WAS A NEW SUGGESTION OF EDIT
 * Revision as of 08:54, 27 October 2014 TeddyBear01 reverts Gregkaye and, for the first time, states "Reverting a disruption"

Please also pay attention to the Israel in opposition issue

The text is found at Reducing Islamic criticism and highlighting the involvement of Israel which contains the above content and initial responses in a box that PBS I think unjustly collapsed.

In conversation another editor strongly agrees with me about this injustice and this is found in the third paragraph and onwards at User talk:Gregkaye.

Some of the responses from TeddyBear01 left me feeling quite encouraged that there might be a person here that I could develop a reasonable relationship with and I initiated a dialogue intitled Kudos to you. In the second paragraph of this dialogue I stated a position of wanting to do something about the initial, '"jihad", criticism and disruption' content but have had no reply.

At the same time this editor has been pushing for the inclusion of Israel on the ISIL opponents list even though Israel does not fit the criteria and has made this addition with the provision of three citations which served to make the inclusion of Israel stand out from the crowd. I ask questions and display legitimate content. For a wide variety of reasons I have pulled away from a POV that I still feel is important but have kept this to the side.

This user habitually responds with comments such as, " And Gregkaye, please don't defame me, I am not the one pushing my POV aggressively." The words defame and defaming appear five times now in the article in response to taking up a 1RR case against the user, following my presentation of the user's edit history and after challenging the Israel entry. Again my approach has been to present content and ask questions and I am met with rhetoric and accusation.

I do not think it fair that a user will not just stick with the arguments but will habitually attack editors.

If intervention is appropriate it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank-you

Appols
Genuine apologies for my last ISIL edit which wasn't well thought or checked through. Thank-you for clearing it up. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  14:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Gregkaye, sorry for not answering before. I was busy. It's ok, don't worry. :) TeddyBear01 (talk) 10:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

If we need to talk
We are clearly not seeing things eye to eye and I am wondering what can be done about that. I still see that you have left a lot of belittling, accusational and side-lining content in your posts. There was so much that I had asked you to revisit content in my second paragraph from the top. To quote one of your posts: "That's not criticism or opinion, but human rights reports by international organizations. Don't you know the difference? Really? So according to you the opinion of an imam has more value than the FACTS stated by the UN and Amnesty on their human rights reports? After saying this, don't expect us to believe that you're editing in good faith and objectively. This is no more than your bizarre, subjective personal opinion. I won't buy your distortions and manipulations. No one will. TeddyBear01 (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)" Can you not see any difficulty here? How would you feel if someone communicated with you like that?

Please TeddyBear, things have got to be fair. Please look at your content. I have asked you to strike offending content and you have made no response. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  19:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Gregkaye, I agree that this way of addressing you wasn't correct. So I offer you my sincere apologies. Also, to point out all my previous mistakes in order to shut me up doesn't help; attacks don't help. We should get along. That's the best for us and Wikipedia. Good night. :) TeddyBear01 (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply and I apologise for not replying earlier but I hadn't picked up on the ping. The issue was that content is not correct.  There are still baseless accusations up on the page and which may now be going into archive that have not been struck.  I had asked a question which was not answered.  I have made no attacks and have made no defamatory comments and yet you have not struck your many accusations from the record.  I would very much like for us to get along and my efforts above are testament to this - but things have got to be fair.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  07:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You still have not supplied evidence of your accusations on attacks. I have asked for you to strike your previously erroneous statements to be struck and you are failing to do so.  You have placed multiple unsubstantiated accusations of, for instance, me "defaming" and, in effect, you have defamed me.  Please keep perspective.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  06:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Your reverts in ISIS
I agree with your reverts re Khawarij and "jihadist" in the Lead, but I think you had better join the discussion "Can we add this important information to the Lead?" on the Talk page. You may not be aware that there is another dispute (again) about "Khawarij" going on there. :( ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, P123ct1. I will join now. Another dispute about this??? OMG... It's obvious that should not be on the lead. It's already on both criticism and ideology sections. I don't know, but it seems some want to turn this encyclopedic article into mere PR. TeddyBear01 (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That is exactly my opinion. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Mohammed al-Bukhari
I don't know what to do here. He has already been up for 1 case at 3RR. But you know the procedure and can take action as you like. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  18:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, Gregkaye! :) I was already filling the report. I also read the report you filled yesterday. I think something should be done. Friendly greetings. TeddyBear01 (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * He (I presume from name) refuses to talk. There is nothing to be done and that exasperates me.  You can try to bring people on board but it seems that may be impossible.  It would be nice, however you put things, if you could encourage communication.  Without that it is more likely to end up badly for him as a person I think.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  18:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, TeddyBear, for taking this editor to the Edit-warring Noticeboard again. I agree with you that this is more than edit-warring, it is vandalism.  I have reverted the Khawarij edit and put the paragraph he moved up back to its place at the end of the Lead.   ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gregkaye's comment on the article talk page. It would far better to address such a problem by first warning the editor on the editor's talk with the {{subst:Gs/SCW&ISIL notification}} template and adding the name of the editor to the sanctions page (General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The editor is not then in a position to argue that they did not know about the sanctions.
 * If you wish to add to your message it is better to state it using neutral terms. Eg "You duplicated info in the lead, I reverted it, if you think that the information ought to be put back in please explain you proposed changes to the article on the article's talk page (per WP:BRD). Your initial comment on the talk page of the article to Mohammed al-Bukhari, lacked  an assumption of good faith, and that makes it harder for the two of you to reach an agreement on the content of the article. -- PBS (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Please discontinue your disruptive editing and please don't again repeat 1RR infringement
TeddyBear01, You have spoken a lot about the importance of following consensus on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. You gave support to the addition of critical content in the first paragraph of the lead here. Against consensus you then reverted addition of critical content in the second paragraph of the lead here which was reverted here and again reverted a consensus edit here which was reverted here.  I don't know what action other editors may take and at this time in the evening am undecided myself. Please hold to your stated views on consensus and desist from your disruptive editing. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  01:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, Gregkaye.

I support terrorist designations at the beginning of the lead. Terrorist designations are not criticism, but the official position of governments regarding ISIL. In the same post I make clear that I oppose criticism on the lead.

There was not consensus to your edit. I have searched through the talk page and I have not seen any consensus. In fact, I have actively opposed to put criticism at the beginning of the lead due to the stated reasons.

I think I have not violated a 1RR. If I have, then I am sorry. But you have violated a 1RR reverting my edits.

My edits are not disruptive at all.

Friendly greetings.


 * To put an end to what looks likes confusion over consensus which led to these revisions, I have proposed something on the Talk page under #28 Bold change of para order in Lead. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * TeddyBear01, as you know your reverts relate your two edits:
 * Revision as of 02:31, 22 November 2014 and
 * Revision as of 23:29, 22 November 2014.
 * Both changes occurred on the same day and within a 24 hour period of time. You understand the 1RR rule.  Sorry is one thing.  The thread is entitled, "Please discontinue your disruptive editing and please don't again repeat 1RR infringement." A response with a content such as OK would have more validity.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  14:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Gregkaye. I didn't find out. I saw you also violated the 1RR reverting my edits. My edits were not disruptive, but I will never violate the 1RR again. Greetings. TeddyBear01 (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am pleased that you finally made a reply. I was not far from filing a report.  Here is the condition of the consensus related thread within which you were the sole voice of objection. Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  22:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the updated version of the thread. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

ISIS Lead paragraphs
I understand your concern about these paragraphs. I started the changes by making two bold changes, moving two paras from the bottom to the top, but made it clear that I would revert if editors wished. No-one objected, so the moves stayed. But the wording was then disputed and I asked editors for views to get consensus agreement on the wording. That seems to have worked, although with a bad result for you and in one case I agreed to something I didn't really want, but was concerned to get results instead of more prolonged argument that got nowhere. Now we have an editor who has twice carried out major restructuring of the article, dropping bits of text and moving text around, without consulting editors first. In this he is practically rewriting the article himself. He is prepared to make some adjustments on the suggestion of editors, but this is not the way to edit. Editors are being forced to follow his basic plan. There has been only one complaint about this high-handed action on the Talk page, from me. The article is practically unrecognizable and so against the way I think it should be that I have given up on it. Have you looked hard at the restructuring and moving around of parts of the text? The concern about where the terrorist designation should go in the Lead pales into insignificance compared with the latest huge changes. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have moved the terrorist designation section to second place after "History" as to me this is part of the history of the group and to call these official designations "criticisms" I don't think is appropriate. I can't remember now why they came to be classed as "criticisms". ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not answering earlier, I've been too busy. I totally agree with you, P123ct1. I have not looked at the restructuring and moving of parts of the text, but I think we should make a topic about it on the Talk. I don't agree that criticism should be before the "goals, terrotory claims and resources" section and opposition/support sections. It's unarranged and gives a bad impression. Have a nice day. :) TeddyBear01 (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's all right. I knew you were not always available.  I am glad to see you have commented on the latest thread on the Talk page.  Keep an eye open for developments when you can as the order of sections on the page changes constantly now.  It is hard to keep up with.  ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Can I give a word of advice? It is meant to help.  Be very careful when talking about consensus: make sure when you say there is or is not consensus that it really is true. I know it means trawling back through the comments, but editors will understandably be upset if they cannot see the consensus you are talking about. Your contributions are valuable so it pays to be accurate in your comments.  Cheers, P123ct1 (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)