| Revision as of 16:16, 22 June 2012 editDennis Brown (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions69,230 edits →Vandalism: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:18, 22 June 2012 edit undoWee Curry Monster (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers25,546 edits Rm lecture by an admin who should know better but clearly doesn'tNext edit → | ||
| Line 134: | Line 134: | ||
| *Seriously, a ]??? Oh my... I think I can safely say that I'm thinking what you're thinking right now. Cheers~! --<small>] <sup><span style="font-family:Italic;color:black">]</span></sup></small> 16:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC) | *Seriously, a ]??? Oh my... I think I can safely say that I'm thinking what you're thinking right now. Cheers~! --<small>] <sup><span style="font-family:Italic;color:black">]</span></sup></small> 16:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == False vandalism accusations == | |||
| {{Template:Vandalism warning warning}} For the fifth or so time, read ]. Do. Not. Call. Me. A. Vandal. Again. ] (]) 16:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Vandalism == | |||
| TC has reversed his block, which is what I had anticipated, as I figured he wasn't aware of the previous discussions. This is a borderline case that some admins block for, some admins warn and prepare to block for. In general, I tend to warn first, then instantly block if they don't get the point. This is a matter of trying to be fair, actually, and allowing us all "one mistake". Getting to your tagging of vandalism, I'm sorry, but you are mistaken here. Obviously it isn't "equal" to his mistakes, but you still need to not tag those edits as vandalism. | |||
| According to ]: '''Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages.''' This is an objective standard, not a subjective on. It goes on to say: '''Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful.''' | |||
| In this case, I'm not doubting your logic, or the correctness of your position in any way whatsoever. However, as an outsider, it isn't my place to force a point of view. If I chose a side, I'm no longer an outsider, after all. Since the source of the site is part is from one of the parties in the article topic itself, it complicates the NPOV issue to the point that it must be decided by a consensus on the talk page or DRN. Even POV edits, as you claim his is (and you may very well be correct) are NOT vandalism at Misplaced Pages, and tagging them as such is considered disruptive, and yes, another admin could come up and block YOU if you kept doing it. This is why I am trying to help you here and give you a little guidance. You should only tag for vandalism when it is clearly and universally accepted that the edit is designed to undermine Misplaced Pages. Whole article blanking, adding non-sense (ie:"Brits sucks!" or that kind of stuff) or similar. Otherwise, it might be a violation of NPOV, it might even be 100% incorrect, but if the person adding the material can be assumed to believe that this is a proper edit, then it isn't vandalism. You aren't alone, over half the tags for "vandalism" on Misplaced Pages, aren't vandalism, which is why admins can't just look at the talk page of an editor and assume that the warnings are valid without confirming them individually. | |||
| Now the article is protected, it is easy to use the talk page there (it appears your version was the last one "frozen" for the week), build a consensus. If he reverts after the consensus, it isn't vandalism, but it is "disruptive warring against consensus" assuming an admin can see the consensus on the talk page. And I would gladly and quickly issue a block on the 2nd time in a short period he did this. Yes, I know you would like me to just permanently block him now and be done with it, but I would show you or anyone else the same consideration in a dispute, which is to give all parties the equal chance to discuss first. You are free to disagree and debating isn't going to be fruitful here, but I strongly suggest you take my advice on board regarding vandalism tagging, as my interpretation isn't controversial here. | |||
| ] - ] ] 16:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:18, 22 June 2012
|
——————————————— Wee Curry Monster's Talk Page ———————————————
|
|
| “ | Many people are like garbage trucks. They run around full of garbage, full of frustration, full of anger, and full of disappointment. As their garbage piles up, they look for a place to dump it. And if you let them, they’ll dump it on you. So when someone wants to dump on you, don’t take it personally. Just smile, wave, wish them well, and move on. Believe me. You’ll be happier. --THE LAW OF THE GARBAGE TRUCK | ” |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Running with scissors is too dangerous for Misplaced Pages!
Dispute resolution survey
 Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Wee Curry Monster. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang 11:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you
|
The Modest Barnstar | |
| You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.2.116 (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
This may be of interest to you (well, I mention you)
Hello WCM, the following discussion may be of interest to you: . Regards.--MarshalN20 | 02:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Request for help with unblock request
Hello, Wee Curry Monster. A while ago I sent you an email concerning an unblock request. The user has emailed me again about this, and, since you didn't reply to my email, I thought I would drop you a note here. Gaba p is blocked as a sockpuppet of Alex79818, but he denies being the same person. Here you said that you know Alex79818's real life identity. Gaba p has now given me fairly persuasive evidence of his real life identity, so a comparison of the two should be enough to settle the matter. Could you help? Anything you email me would be treated in strict confidence, and used for no other purpose than settling this issue. If you prefer not to reveal all of what you know it may still be possible to tell me enough for me to decide whether the "two" people are really one or not. I would be very grateful if you could give me some information to help me resolve this. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm actually rather uncomfortable with the idea of one user passing that info to another and would highly suggest this is done via the foundation in case there are any future complaints. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
This may also be of interest to you (considering you're getting insulted)
Hi WCM, I see the Falkland Islands problems are starting again. Not to be a burden, but our pal Lecen continues with his insults (). I still find it funny that he has something against you (specially since you really haven't done anything or said anything against him), but it seems he thinks "FA stars" are some sort of ticket that allows him free insults and intimidation on people. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 00:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ow, he did. See this. MarshalN20, you should consider stop calling your two friends and resort to tag team tactics. It isn't very nice. This is what? The second time you call your friend to help you out in your campaing against me? Ow, yes... it is! But this is just a suggestion, of course. --Lecen (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Why do you turn everything concerning the "Empire of Brazil" into a personal matter? I am still amazed that you insist I am "friends" with Wee Curry Monster and Cambalachero. Our relationship does not go beyond the professional (here in Misplaced Pages), and the only thing that "ties us" is our interest in maintaining the WP:NPOV supported by history literature in English.
- If you're so interested in finding evidence of the three of us conspiring together, the closest thing you'll find is: here. I call dibs on pinstripe.--MarshalN20 | 01:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- WCM, wanna see interesting? Please refer to WP:Requests for mediation/Falkland Islands, so many malfunctions... so little time~! --Dave 18:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed 00:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Have a great weekend~!
Falkland Islands History
Arana-Southern Treaty Nigelpwsmith —Preceding undated comment added 21:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC). As you noted, there are increasing problems with articles concerning the Falkland Islands. British contributors write pages which are then butchered by Argentine users to represent the Argentine view and totally distort the history. I am an amateur historian concentrating on Falklands history. I added a page for the Arana-Southern Treaty (the Convention of Settlement) only to find that some Argentine contributor has thoroughly changed it. He's removed links, changed the text and removed whole sections relevant to the historical document. He's even suggested that the Treaty was derogated - it has not.
I've tried to go back in and correct some of the mess he's created. Some of the material he's added does give a more balanced view, but his editing does not. I accept that the source for much of the material was the Pepper and Pascoe document. However the treaty is online at Wiki-source and is very relevant to the disputed sovereignty.
I intend to go back to the document and adjust it again to include the material he has removed. However, I will ask Misplaced Pages to lock the file afterwards to prevent any further tampering. The Falklands dispute is heating up and it appears that Argentina is spoiling for another fight - to get at the oil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigelpwsmith (talk • contribs) 21:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Nigel, you can't just copy someone else's work, you have to create an original piece of writing that reflects all sources. Whether Argentina is spoiling for a fight or not, to be honest I don't care. What I do care about is writing text that reflects all significant viewpoints. As you will notice from my user page, I upset nationalists of all persuasions, you need to avoid falling into the trap of reflecting a particular nationalist viewpoint. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Many Thanks
Thanks to your input on Arana-Southern Treaty, the article has been improved and the Argentine bias removed. I suspect that they were intent on showing the Convention of Settlement had been derogated to try and infer that Argentina did not end their legal claim on the Falklands in 1850. Their documentation suggests that the diplomats did discuss breaking or disestablishing the treaty, but there is nothing that proves that it was and plenty which shows that the treaty remains. Not only the fact that the treaty was published by the FCO, but also because it was referred to by historians and Argentine politicians as a culpable mistake which legally compromised the Argentine claim. I'm also very concerned that the source of the Argentine documents, the educational establishment, quoted documents found by Dr. José María Ruda, the discredited Argentine representative who misled the United Nations Committee on Decolonisation concerning the history of the Falkland Islands in 1964. It would be a grave mistake for Misplaced Pages to rely on information which is questionable from a source who has been known to deliberately deceive on behalf of his nationalistic objectives.
So thanks again. Nigelpwsmith (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Soviet Approaches to Argentina
I am thinking of adding a summary of the Soviet approach to Argentina with offers of arms and intelligence support, and the price they expected in return. Its in Gavshon and Rice. Maybe in the Third Countries section? Would it add materially? What do you think? Irondome (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not being familiar with the reference, I presume you're referring to the Belgrano book? I tend to be slightly suspect of works published shortly after the war as many make errors of historical fact or have been contradicted by later information (and tend to be somewhat sensationalist). I would personally check the reported facts against a later reference work eg Freedman and propose an edit accordingly. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah its the Sinking of the Belgrano. (Gavshon and Rice 1983) Will check against more mature refs and if consistent, will re-contact you here. Is "proposing an edit" a specific process with its own format and place? (i.e article talk) Just checking because relatively new. No hurry, I can see you are busy. Cheers. Irondome (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Gaba P
I've replied to your message on my talk page. I'm afraid you won't find the reply very helpful, but right now it's the best I can offer, as I have less time available for Misplaced Pages now than I used to have. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
AAF losses- contradiction with another wiki article
Is the AAF losses stated too low? Especially losses in high performance jets. It seems to contradict the wiki article discussing AAF losses Argentine air forces in the Falklands War. Just a thought. Irondome (talk) 04:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Forget it. Double checked figures. I was way off- beam Irondome (talk) 04:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed 15:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
| Again, thanks for your kind words on ANI, no prizes for guessing why I gave it a miss. Dave 15:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC) |
- Seriously, a WP:PETARD??? Oh my... I think I can safely say that I'm thinking what you're thinking right now. Cheers~! --Dave 16:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)