| Revision as of 15:23, 16 January 2013 editGaba p (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers3,881 edits →ANI coming: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:23, 16 January 2013 edit undoWee Curry Monster (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers25,546 editsm Reverted edits by Gaba p (talk) to last version by Wee Curry MonsterNext edit → | ||
| Line 214: | Line 214: | ||
| Forgive me for incorrectly editing the article, for I had assumed that England had assumed actual administration of the island while the Dutch only assisted in the capture, rather than the Dutch-English interim administration of the island that seems to have taken place until it was formally ceded to the newly-formed Great Britain some time after 1710. I would say, however, that it was the English and Dutch, not Britain who captured the island in 1703, as your revision suggested. | Forgive me for incorrectly editing the article, for I had assumed that England had assumed actual administration of the island while the Dutch only assisted in the capture, rather than the Dutch-English interim administration of the island that seems to have taken place until it was formally ceded to the newly-formed Great Britain some time after 1710. I would say, however, that it was the English and Dutch, not Britain who captured the island in 1703, as your revision suggested. | ||
| --] (]) 23:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC) | --] (]) 23:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == ANI coming == | |||
| Very well, you moved my comment around for a second time so I'll go ahead and report you at ANI. I'll notify you once the ticket is opened. Regards. ] (]) 15:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:23, 16 January 2013
SEMI-RETIRED This user is no longer very active on Misplaced Pages as of September 29, 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!
A Ban is NOT a Block
A Ban is not a block. But, if you break the imposed sanction you could be. You could just agree to the sactions, still "retire" (temporarily) and communicate with a mentor about ways to avoid editing when there is a conflict. There is a mentor program at Misplaced Pages. This is what I did and whether my mentor knew it or not, he helped.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- The number 42 is the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything, calculated by an enormous supercomputer over a period of 7.5 million years........unfortunately no one remembers what the question was.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is a lot like the Criminal Justice System in the UK, it tries so hard to be fair to the offender it often punishes the victim instead. I don't confuse the law with justice, nor do I respect it anymore and I've really lost any respect I had left for the project. As you pointed out, this isn't a hassle free environment but those making it unpleasant keep getting away with it. I mean really why do we bother, you might as well let the bastards get their own way. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- The question is "What do you get if you multiply 9 x 6?" Ans: 42. I like Douglas Adams but Kafka is better at understanding wikipedia, its Kafkaesque when they invent a crime to charge you with when you didn't break the rules.
- Unroll your towel. Take a break. Everyone needs a rest now and then. A temp ban is not the end of the world.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- The question is "What do you get if you multiply 9 x 6?" Ans: 42. I like Douglas Adams but Kafka is better at understanding wikipedia, its Kafkaesque when they invent a crime to charge you with when you didn't break the rules.
Well, this is just fucking stupid. You just had to walk away from the ANI and let it wind down (like we used to do at WQA), but that's gone because it "wasn't effective." Now the so-called "Civil POV" pushers win and we've lost a decent content editor. Hopefully the retirement is temporary. Nobody Ent 17:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Rest, then come back
Wee, I know you are tired of the one year harassment and of the verdict at the ANI. I hope you will rest and then come back very soon. Many other good editors have become discouraged and found a short rest results in reconsideration and a comeback as an editor. I hope this happens with you.
Misplaced Pages is far from perfect and I think that many editors consider retirement at one time or another. Most of them are temporarily exhausted by the various injustices and come back. You are an important content editor and Misplaced Pages cannot afford to lose editors like you. Troublemakers are aplenty but good editors are rare and leaving at an alarming rate.
Rest, then come back. Misplaced Pages needs you. Mugginsx (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
WCM, I concur with Mug, Nobody and the mad scientist on this one, you should have just walked away and let someone handle it. All you had to do was to trust that things would be taken care of and that other concerned but uninvolved Admin(s) would come up with a better solution to help with the problem, instead of you fighting a lonely battle against a tag-team, eh? Anyway, a short break would do you some good to clear up your mind and I really hope to see you back here again, soon. Cheers and best. --Dave 01:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- You are right, Muggins, when you say that Misplaced Pages cannot afford to lose editors like Curry Monster. But at the same time it's driving editors like Curry Monster away by refusing to back them when they find themselves fighting to ensure that articles respect basic core policies that are supposed to be part of the encyclopædia's values.
- Curry Monster has been fundamental to the development of Falklands articles over the course of the last five years and has played a crucial role in maintaining their neutrality. He's given an huge amount to this project, and his expertise combined with the value he puts on neutrality will be nigh-on impossible for the encyclopædia to replace. The fact that someone seriously proposed topic-banning him from Falklands topics is a massive slap in the face. Basically, it's a message that all the effort that he's put into the project is not just not valued, but actually considered a problem! Should we really be surprised by his reaction? I'm not.
- It shouldn't be a matter of walking away from ANI and letting it wind down. If that's the best possible outcome in a case like this, then that demonstrates quite how far Misplaced Pages has lost control of its disruptive editors. And it's not like this is the first time we've had a similar failure by ANI to back those who seek to uphold policy, even in the Falklands arena. Not by a long shout.
- Misplaced Pages is rapidly losing its good content editors. In this particular fiasco, I think we've seen a pretty good illustration of why. Kahastok talk 17:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I do not understand at all the way that ANI ] was closed. Among other things, there is a massive strikethrough which I cannot attribute to any editor in the the edit history at time of closing. It was all very strange. I did the "partial" strikethrough insofar as my conversation with Amadscientist but it was very small and did not include the Massive Strikethrough which no one had the right to do to my mind and within my understand of Misplaced Pages guidelines.
- I think it is also insulting to offer Wee a Topic ban when he spent years doing such extremely fine work on those articles. That is wiki for you sometimes - treat the good editors like trash and the trash like good editors. Mugginsx (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words, much appreciated, but I'm not putting as much effort in. I will remain effectively retired but may pop in from time to time. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed 21:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 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, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 03:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Result of your appeal against the May, 2011 Gibraltar restriction
The restriction against you and three other editors on the Gibraltar article has been lifted on a trial basis. Please see this result. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
A page you started has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Political development in modern Gibraltar, Wee Curry Monster!
Misplaced Pages editor Theopolisme just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Really enjoyed reading your three recent articles... keep it up!
To reply, leave a comment on Theopolisme's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Good to see you back
Hey man. Looks like you've been working hard in the background anyways... Thanks for your contributions! :) --Gibmetal 77 23:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hi WCM, sorry I couldn't answer your call. You caught me on holiday in Barcelona with limited internet access. Everything OK now? --Gibmetal 77 00:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for the update. I've been meaning to read your article in detail for any copyedits it may need so I'll look out for any additions I feel are inappropriate at the same time. --Gibmetal 77 12:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Political development in modern Gibraltar at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- That is an impressive article out of nowhere. Are you in Gib? If so then I guess you know Gibmetall77 but there are new active editors, photographers, supporters who you might like to meet. If you look at the project page then you will see the list of 100 plaques that we intend to mount. Thanks for the contribution Victuallers (talk) 11:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hi WCM, sorry to hear about your issue with Arbcom. If it still hurts then maybe better to keep cool. If you do decide to return then there are quieter places than here at the moment.... although we'd be pleased to have you. Obviously we are trying to avoid politics which is why we have not confined ourselves to the Gib borders - best Victuallers (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Old hands
I really don't like it when old hands feel rejected. Don't let them make you feel that way, there are probably hundreds of editors that smile every time they see your handle. Rich Farmbrough, 00:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC).
- Aye~! --Dave 00:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Political development in modern Gibraltar
Hello! Your submission of Political development in modern Gibraltar at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cambalachero (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Fresh input needed
- See Operation Sea Lion : The Sandhurst Wargame, unpolished gem here. Thoughts? --Dave 02:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 17:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Dave 17:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 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 Nick-D (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Retired tags in your userspace
Please will you remove these tags, as you're clearly not retired - it's rather confusing. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry to hear that. Good luck, whatever you choose to do. --Dweller (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Little Englander
Hi Wee Curry Monster
I seek a public apology from you for stating that I called you a "Little Englander" a term which you find insulting. This apology can be posted on one of the Talk pages where you make the allegation. If no such apology is forthcoming, I will be taking the matter further.
I have always suspected that you were Scots - a few years ago you included the word "Scotsman" in your signature. I have respected this and have never, repeat never, suggested that you were English. The exact wording that I used was "The use of the metric system has a number of political overtones - many Eurosceptic and "Little Englanders" use imperial units of measure as a "badge of honour". This sentence does not in any way suggest that the only people to use the imperial system are "Little Englanders" or "Eurosceptics" .
Martinvl (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- If I believed for one second that I had genuinely misunderstood your point, I would apologise in a heart beat. However, I see no need to apologise, that remark was clearly aimed at me and I took great offense. It was designed to denigrate the opinion of those holding a view contrary to your own. If you don't wish to give offense, don't use offensive language to address others. I do not find your explanation in the least convincing and to be frank your demand for an apology absurd. If you wish to make a fool of yourself by taking this further, please do, but I suggest you watch out for a WP:PETARD. If you wish discussions to be more cordial, don't be so deliberately provocative and don't come to my talk page demanding an apology.
- And titling a thread "Little Englander", really thats just rubbing salt in the wound. I have the impression you've done that deliberately. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Please look up Little Englander. You will find that there is probably a lot of common ground between the "Little Englanders" (as described in the article) and the Eurosceptics. Again I repeat - this was not aimed at you personally - that is not my way of working. Martinvl (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- And titling a thread "Little Englander", really thats just rubbing salt in the wound. I have the impression you've done that deliberately. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Re: Thanks
Thank you for the gratitude. This is the first wiki-mediation that has worked out good for me, but I think that it ultimately all comes down to the people in the discussion. Even while the two sides have conflicts of opinion, the sandbox work demonstrates that (in the end) both can be reasonable about how to build a good encyclopedia. I wish that I could say the same about other Wikipedians.
- With regards to the e-mail you sent me, I have read it and I have a similar conclusion of it. This is the information that should go as the second paragraph of the Sov. Disp. section. As it currently stands, the section has a "time gap" from 1816 to 1945. So the problem is not of where to include it, but rather that of how to include it.
Nonetheless, I think that any further major changes to the Sov. Disp. section should be postponed for a while. The current section effectively presents the UK and Argentine positions in summary. The main article (Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute) is, by its nature, doomed to be controversial for eternity. As long as the dispute is contained within that article, everything else should be good. Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | 15:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Why?
I would like an explanation as to why you deleted my message to EdJohnston. You have provided no reason, and thus I reverted your arbitrary deletion.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 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 Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Deletion and revert on my talkpage
Could you please explain why you removed my reply to another editor on my talkpage? I do appreciate your reverting yourself, but I am still curious as to why you were deleting to begin with. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Revert on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
Why did you revert my comment? Was this a misclick or other mistake? Reyk YO! 21:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Political development in modern Gibraltar
Hi WCM, I'm reviewing your DYK nomination of Political development in modern Gibraltar. It's a very good article and it fills an important gap - well done. However, the intro is a bit short. Do you think you could write a longer lead for the article that would summarise its content better? (WP:LEAD has some useful advice). Prioryman (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, I've noticed a few referencing errors. References 16, 31 and 32 are coming up as not pointing to any citations. Could you please fix this? Prioryman (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Political development in modern Gibraltar at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Prioryman (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
English/British/Anglo-Dutch Capture of Gibraltar
Forgive me for incorrectly editing the article, for I had assumed that England had assumed actual administration of the island while the Dutch only assisted in the capture, rather than the Dutch-English interim administration of the island that seems to have taken place until it was formally ceded to the newly-formed Great Britain some time after 1710. I would say, however, that it was the English and Dutch, not Britain who captured the island in 1703, as your revision suggested. --Breatannach (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)