Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:28, 1 March 2012

Welcome!

Hello, Langus-TxT, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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 Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Cambalachero (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I appreciate the support :)

Langus-TxT (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing vandalism is not covered under the policy you cited. The editor above has used a number of sock puppets and has been banned as a result and is now resorting to using IP to continue with the same disruptive behaviour. The talk page had to be semi-protected as a result of his behaviour last night. I would suggest that with an experienced editor you might WP:AGF and ask before accusing someone of behaving inappropriately. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree. "The best option if there is a concern with a user's page is to draw their attention to the matter via their talk page and let them edit it themselves". Added to the fact I couldn't find in WP:VAN anything explicit about the question, I would ask you to please refrain from deleting content from here yourself. I expect from everyone that you ask me first, or at least that you leave a note if matters needs to be addressed fast.

About WP:AGF: I do assume good faith, it's only I find a little rude that you deleted content from my talk page. I don't need to ask anyone what is polite and what is not, specially being the rules written and at my disposal. Please act respectfully here, even if I'm new in this. I'm still an editor just like yourself. Langus-TxT (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at my talk page history, you'll find several occasions where people have removed such messages. They didn't ask or need my permission, I simply said thank you that they took the time. Rest assured that as I have been castigated for extending you the same courtesy, I will not be doing so again. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• @Langus-TxT: I'dd strongly suggest that you look ← way and WCM would look → way, until such time you two can get along with each other but not before that. Since you don't like WCM to help or comment here, stay off his talk page in return, note I've reverted your wee trollish remark there, don't do it again if indeed you are assuming good faith. Also, you need to read up on WP:Don't assume and the main article of WP:Civility. Best and out. --Dave 22:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

@Dave: I understand it may look trollish, but if you look all I've been through with him (if you actually read all of it, if you actually analyze every edit, if actually read every personal attack he has laid on me) you would understand what is happening here. It's no my intention to poke him, I'm just following the required steps in WP:DR by asking him to stop reverting my contributions without solid grounds for it. So I ask you to please revert your changes on another user talk page, and leave it for him to delete.

And forgive me but I don't get your point about WP:Don't assume & WP:Civility... they contradict each other, and the first one is only an essay.

Oh and one more thing: I don't have any issue with WCM coming here, I just asked him to leave a note if he deleted something, like this guideline explains. Please read my comments carefully, because that's how things start to go awry between editors... believe me, I know. Regards. -- Langus-TxT (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Update: Nevermind, he already read it. -- Langus-TxT (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Falkland Islands Article in Arbitration

Having briefly reviewed the article's discussion history, I've identified you as a potentially aggrieved editor whose contributions may have been negatively impacted by the actions of a group of editors who are alleged to be POV-pushing and engaging in WP:GAMES. I invite you to peruse the arbcom request and voice your opinion and experiences, at your leisure. The link is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#WP:NPOV_and_WP:GAMES_in_.22Falkland_Islands.22_and_related_articles

Thank you.Alex79818 (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Explanation

Reaffirm was not a good translation, so I changed it back. Reaffirm implies it was previously in the constitution, which it was not. Similarly claim is used as a noun, not a verb, so the guideline WP:NPOVT does not apply. Even Argentina descibed this as a sovereignty claim. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for this clarification. I see now you're right about WP:NPOVT (I hadn't read the new comments in the talk page), so I'll stop pushing about it; I will have it in mind from now on. Still it would make no difference to use one word or another, as Pfainuk noted too, but well.

Regarding 'reaffirm' I have to say I'm not convinced... I ask you to read again the text, because that's the expression that is used in the original source, only in the sense that it is the historical claim of sovereignty. -- Langus (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You know that any translation, particular a literal translation does not always work as language use is different. In particular, the way you wrote implied it was a re-affirmation of an exisitng clause in the constitution. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't think the quote I included from the constitution is sufficient then? Wee Curry Monster talk 07:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Then please suggest a word (or phrase) that express that is an historical claim for Argentina BUT it isn't included in the previous Constitution. -- Langus (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The comment on conventions was a local footnote, it isn't part of the British position for info. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You have to admit that discrediting a claim right below it, in the Argentine section, is not very NPOV... if you don't think it belongs to the British position section, then it should be moved somewhere else or removed altogether. I'm sure that if I start adding "footnotes" in the British claim section you won't like it either. -- Langus (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not discrediting the claim, I am providing background information. Tell me do you deliberately set out to annoy me with false accusations of bias, I am getting very irritated by this. If you think this information discredits the Argentine claim, then removing it is very POV on your part - you're suppressing information because you don't like it and making it a British "claim" is presenting false information on many levels. The neutral fact is that Argentina never ratified the claim.

Do you not think this information is pertinent and relevant? Are readers better informed with it and being allowed to form their own opinions? Those are the questions you should be asking and answering. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not after you, how many times do I have to explain it? I can't possibly know which editor included which information. Re the main issue, I disagree and we shall continue on the talk page. -- Langus (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You disagree, on what grounds. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

and , I assumed certain edits as an IP editor were an honest mistake. See WP:SOCK Wee Curry Monster talk 19:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

And you also assume the IP was me. Your logic jumps have severe flaws. Do you realize you're accusing me of socket puppetry? I'm sorry but even if you say it softly you're not AGF. -- Langus (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Misplaced Pages accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Langus-TxT. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe this positively proves you don't assume good faith from me... -- Langus (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Civility

Do not interrupt my section in Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-06-24/Falkland Islands Sovereignty Dispute.

For a friendly discussion use the area forseen for your contribution and not my area. --Keysanger (what?) 18:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That area was not there when I added the correction. Furthermore, I don't believe that my addition was wrong, as I clearly made a subsection for it. If you are presenting erroneous information to the mediator, I have to note it in more a visible way than buried in a discussion, or he may take the information as true and make a wrong call based upon it. Regards. -- Langus (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

<Update:> great, you deleted my statement from the case. And you preach me about civility?? -- Langus (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive Behaviour

Yes you have been disruptive.

IF you come at me accusing me of bias and POV editing, then I will not unreasonably assume you are coming here becuase it does not reflect your bias and POV and not accept your proposals. On the other hand if you come at me, suggesting an improvement you'll find me completely different.

If you attempt to impose your ideas by edit warring or lodging frivolous complaints at WP:ANI then I will become even more stubborn about not moving.

I suggest you look at the talk page, I'm accused by people like you of having a pro-British bias and by blinkered Brits of having a pro-Argentine bias. That should tell you something.

You should also reflect about how you have gone about things. You can either continue in the same vein or work collaboratively. I prefer the latter and I suggest you ask Pfainuk about how I bridged the gap between Brits on Argentines on Falklands topics. You might well be surprised by what you find. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been just as disruptive as yourself. When you become "stubborn" and try by all means to go against a proposed change, even if its convenience is backed by other editors, from both sides (e.g. ) you are going against Misplaced Pages's values. I know that first times we talked I wasn't precisely civil, but you have to understand that I didn't know anything about WP internals. Besides, I have to tell you: you have a way of "speaking" that, in plain text and to the eyes of a newbie, looks pretty rude.

Yes, I stumbled upon the Falklands article and I saw some NPOV concerns. I am here because what I saw (a few passages actually) didn't reflect what I consider a neutral POV (you can call it "my POV" if you want to). The same way as you did long ago, as far as I can tell. Still, that doesn't mean that I think my POV is the truth. I know we're all biased by our feelings (yes, you too) and I know I'm capable of dealing with it. When there's no support for my view, I let go (e.g. ). When I'm wrong, I recognize it and move along, thanking or asking for forgiveness if needed.(e.g. ) Ask to yourself: when was the last time you did that?

Is that "disruptive behavior"? I don't think so. The problem is you're too on the defensive, and you now assume everything I do is to bother you. I can see now how you're throwing the same accusations at User:Collect: you feel we're after you, that we're using socket puppets, the we have "an agenda", etc. etc. We're not. We have a POV, just like yourself. Just like everyone.

I'm not here to impose Argentina's POV, I just want a balance. I wish we could always get along like we just did on the History of the Falkland Islands article. But it seems that most of the times you assume my edits are in bad faith, it seems almost as you have the urge to replace it with your own words. This is unique amongst Falkland's editors. You always go on and on when we're discussing a personal interpretation of some words or expression. Tell me, why your interpretations about an particular expression is supposed to be better or more correct than others, myself included? Don't you ever doubt? Don't you think that is better to strive for a neutral article that to have one written as you think is the right way?

About the "frivolous ANI": you know what forced me to do that. It was you the disruptive one back then, you forced a text into that article and reverted my contributions for no reason. But I let that go, as you actually really improved the article after that, all in all.

So, I don't know what else to say. I think you're a very prolific and valuable writer. But your attitude towards change, towards corrections, are problematic. You shouldn't take it so personally, and value the work of reviewers and the like.

Regards. --Langus (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I do recognise I can be particularly stubborn when someone tries to push me around and you pushed all the wrong buttons - but then I frequently ask trusted friends for a sanity check and have done so with regards to your edits. I don't think you would like the results and I don't ask anyone who would simply blow smoke up my ass, I'll ask someone who will tell me when I'm wrong. And when I am wrong I will apologise, I do not have a problem doing so where it is warranted.

I'm a Glaswegian and we speak plainly, I would suggest you learn to respect cultural differences and not read anything in to them. Text is an impersonal way of communicating and does not convey nuance at all well. There is nothing rude about me, its how we speak. See ,.

Equally I am fair minded and will listen to an argument. But I happen to consider you were wrong with your accusations of POV editing and the original wording was better than that which you tried to impose. And equally you didn't listen when I tried to explain why.

You are also wrong that I am always assuming bad faith in your edits, you appear to never stop to think when I have acted I did so in good faith to improve the article. If you improve the article you will hear no complaint from me.

At Luis Vernet, the lede you tried to add was poorly written and very much POV, whether that was deliberate or subconscious. I improved it using text from another article and then significantly expanded it. There was a reason, you chose to presume bad faith in my editing and the ANI case was frivolous.

I do happen to value review but equally don't take it so personally if I don't agree with you. Really the response to the RFC you started should have been a wake up call. We can either move forward working in collaboration or continue as we are. I don't particularly like butting heads all the time. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Lets try something. Are you capable of leaving all the past behind and starting over with me? Can you forget all the things I've said, all the anger you felt, all the things you've done? Can you see me with new eyes, as if we'd just met? I propose you to work on very precise rules to get through future disagreements. For example, using more our talk pages or collapsible sections to not bother other editors; defining clear rules about how to use other editor's inputs to close a discussion (using them as votes); setting a time amount or word count that we should not surpass; defining things we shouldn't do, or words we should avoid; etc. We should be able to change these rules at any time by common agreement, especially in order to prevent us from treating each other in an uncivil manner. --Langus (talk) 01:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Look there is no need for anything elaborate. I don't bear grudges, all I ask is you recognise anything I do is done in good faith and do not presume anything. If you can do that, we can easily work together. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You have my word that from now on I'll assume good faith from you, no exceptions, and I'll forget all we've been through; I expect the same from you. But I fear that if we have another dispute like the last one on the word 'claim', we may be back to zero soon. That's why I say about listening to other user's inputs and count them as votes. In that particular case, Pfainuk understood my point, and expressed so. Alex (now banned) also supported me. Martinvl walked away from the discussion. If it weren't for Collect, who broke in, forced the changes and resisted your revertions, then probably nothing would've changed. If something like that ever happens again, you'll lose my current good will. And I don't want that. Regards. --Langus (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe you have deluded yourself as to the support you had. Pfainuk was ambivalent about the wording and said so, Martin supported it after I explained it, Alex (now banned and you're counting an editor banned for disruption!) supported it but then he would wouldn't he. Collect sided with Alex, who is now banned, which says a lot about his judgement and tried to have a valuable reference work banned. Mmmmm. You also started an RFC, which came down on my side. Does it never strike you, that perhaps you were wrong? Misplaced Pages is not about votes, its about strength of argument and I don't believe the changes forced by Collect improved the article. I am not obliged to agree with you, if I am not convinced by your argument and the correct thing to do is follow WP:DR rather than trying to use policy to force your change. I fear you still don't get it.

I am quite prepared to draw a line under past disagreements but if that is an indication you would behave the same in future, I conclude you haven't learnt from the experience. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I was writing a detailed analysis of each involved editor, but prolonging this interchange looks pointless now. I will only show you Pfainuk's comment to illustrate the big problem here: "To "claim" can easily imply that the author is doubts the accuracy of the claim. Contrasting "Vernet claimed" with "the Lexington... reports" would seem asymmetric, in that it uses a wording that could be taken to cast question on the accuracy Vernet's point but not the Lexington's. While I'm not arguing that the sentence is biased, I can see how others might come to that conclusion. While I do not think that "stated" is necessarily a good word to use (it sounds clunky to me), I do not have any particular objection to a rewording of the sentence to remove the potential for bias that I can see being read into the existing sentence." --> to me, this is in favor of changing the wording. For you, it is ambivalent. Sadly, it looks like we'll never understand each other without external help.

You still have my goodwill, as a sign of hope for a better understanding.

Regards. --Langus (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD - BOLD edit, reverted, then discussed. You appear to think revert warring is preferrable, your first action on returning was to revert. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I've seen other instances where an editor reverted your revertion and that settled the matter, more precisely here. But next time I'll start directly on talk page, for the sake of our health. I've already replied there. Sorry for that, it wasn't my intention to revert war or to cause you trouble. Regards. --Langus (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette discussion

I have made an uninvolved editors comment at the current Wikiquette discussion involving the article Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands --Senra (Talk) 10:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sigh

I see you still prefer confrontation to collaboration. Filibuster? You repeatedly judge people by your own standards. Just because you employ such a tactic repeatedly to impose POV text is no excuse. No matter.

'tis the season of goodwill, so Merry Christmas. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too, Wee Curry Monster, honestly. I truly believe that if we could have a beer some day, we would get to understand each other better. Too bad that distances are so great.

I truly wish you have a great time. --Langus (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:DTTR Look I can see what you're doing, you're blocking progress whilst being superficially civil unless you get the edit you want. You accused me of filibustering, thats all you're doing. Sometimes we give things away unintentionally. You drop the stick. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I left not only a template but a lengthy explanation of the problem below it, both of them you reverted right away without an answer. I know that that's the way you selectively clean up your talk page, but I'm just saying this for the record. By the way, a template plus an explanation is completely acceptable, as per WP:DTTR.

I've reverted to the original text again. Just because the other editors are not around now it doesn't mean you can disregard them. --Langus (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not disregarded them, progress stalled because of your filibustering. You accuse others of doing exactly what you're doing. You are now reverting sourced content, which by the way includes the very text you wanted, it just doesn't put the spin on it you wanted by omitting the content you don't like. You are trying to censor an article to favour a nationalist agenda and that is not acceptable. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Progress stalled because you failed to provide secondary, reliable sources for Duncan's version. Sourced content can be reject by a number of reasons, being one of them to be based on WP:PRIMARY sources. And I have no clue about what you mean by "the very text you wanted". And no, I'm morally against of what you're accusing me of pursuing. --Langus (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the exclusive club of people who are no longer welcome to post on my talk page. Please respect this, thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That's ok, but you didn't answer my question... should I understand that the edit summary in this revertion was directed to me in bad faith? Was it an error? Or am I wrong in my understanding of 'minor edit'? This was edit, which I marked as minor because I only corrected capitalization. --Langus (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I made a mistake that you were responsible for the entire edit. Sorry for that. I was over hasty and irritated at the time, so for that I apologise and withdraw the comment above. Again sorry, my temper sometimes gets the better of me. Glaswegian father and Spanish mother is a fiery combination. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)