User talk:Wee Curry Monster

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Egg plant (talk | contribs) at 20:05, 9 February 2010 (→Drive-by tagging: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:05, 9 February 2010 by Egg plant (talk | contribs) (→Drive-by tagging: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Home

E-mail

——————————————— Wee Curry Monster's Talk Page ———————————————

Wee Curry Monster is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages soon.

Please note that it is 3:14 AM (GMT), where I live
I will normally reply to your message on your talk page but will frequently reply here if it is warranted. To be honest, the way I respond is chaotic and haphazard, don't be offended if I forget. For information, I have removed all user pages from my watchlist and the drama boards of WP:ANI and WP:AN, I am not interested in that nonsense.
One of my pet hates is the drive by tagger. People whose sole contribution to[REDACTED] is adding multiple {{cn}} tags to articles but never getting off their lazy backsides to find citations themselves. One aspect of this that is particularly irritating is they're often added in the middle of a sentence ignoring the existing citation, which 99% of the time corroborates the information. If you remove unneeded tags, provide an edit summary to that effect, their usual response is to edit war a tag back pompously spouting off about policy. If you're one of these people coming here to give me a lecture because I removed your tag, well, I strongly suggest you don't. I recommend WP:SOFIXIT ie get off your lazy backside and do the donkey work yourself instead of leaving it to others. I realise this is personal opinion but I consider the only use for tags is A) as a personal reminder to go back and fix something, B) to tag something you're concerned about, intuitively feel is correct but you can't find a cite or finally C) you've tried to find a cite, can't corroborate information but someone is edit warring challenged material back into an article. Do any of those and its thumbs up from me!
Please post new messages at the bottom of this page and don't forget to give your message a heading.
Remember to sign using the four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message.
Please be civil, if you fail to be civil I will simply ignore you.
As a Glaswegian (born, bred and proud of it) I speak directly and don't pussy foot around. Whilst I'm direct, I do try to be polite. I have observed there are far too many editors on Misplaced Pages who take offence at comments I and others make. Usually this is because they read into a comment, a totally unintended meaning. Remember text is a crap medium for conveying nuance. What you interpret as sarcasm in all probability was a light hearted or jocular remark. Textual communication is further complicated by cultural differences in the way English is used. For example: An American describing something as quite nice will mean it as a compliment, whereas a Brit is more than likely saying it is crap. If you find yourself here after taking offence at something I've written, breathe, count to ten and assume good faith before posting.
If I've deleted your message, basically that means I've read it and nothing else. I do tend to delete what I regard as niff naff and trivia.
Repeatedly adding the same message to my talk page will simply piss me off and more than likely just be deleted. Refer to WP:3RR, I can delete comments on my own talk page if I like but you don't get to badger me. Per WP:UP#CMT I am perfectly within my rights to remove comments.
If you're asked not to comment here then please respect that and don't.
There are a number of friendly talk page stalkers, who have my permission to remove comments that are unwelcome. If they do so, please respect my wishes and do not revert.
I do not claim to be infallible, occasionally I'll revert something in error.
I've also noticed a tendency when editing on my tablet to occasionally hit Rollback by accident. If you've spotted what you think is a strange edit of mine, accidental rollback is usually the answer. Feel free to point it out to me but if its rollback I would suggest you just revert; I don't mind people fixing my screw ups.
If you're here because of the revert of a reasonable edit, then may I suggest you first of all ask yourself did you provide an informative edit summary or properly source the edit I reverted. You will find a civil comment will receive a reply (and most likely an apology if warranted).
User:Antandrus some time ago wrote an excellent essay entitled observations on Misplaced Pages behavior. I suggest it as recommended reading to everyone.
I used to do a lot of work on recent changes patrolling to stop wikifiddling, vandalism and partisan changes to the articles on my watchlist. I don't tend to do that much these days but long ago came to the conclusion that most people who post such crap do so because they think Misplaced Pages exists to right great wrongs or set the world to rights. Sorry but, newsflash, it doesn't; its an encyclopedia nothing more. A bed rock policy of Misplaced Pages is to present a neutral point of view. Contrary to popular opinion this does not mean we have to represent ALL views. Rather[REDACTED] represents the predominant views in the literature, this doesn't mean that we represent fringe material with undue prominence. The more advanced POV pushers decide after reading a bit of policy that sourcing makes their edits bulletproof. Wrong again. Sources have to be reliable, so the conspiracy website or the book by a crank doesn't mean your edit is sacrosanct. If you've come to[REDACTED] because you're convinced J. Edgar Hoover was the second gunman on the grassy knoll please jog on. I've pointed you to relevant policy about why your edit was removed in what was intended to be a humorous manner, so please don't bug me any further.
The essay WP:DICK is often trotted out on wikipedia, I try not to refer it to myself anymore. Why? It's my observation that most editors who refer to that essay are complete and utter dicks themselves. It's a sad fact that there are still a lot of arseholes editing wikipedia, it's not worth getting into a spat with them as they're determined they will have the last word and thereby "win" the discussion. Sometimes, best thing is to just walk away and as my grannie used to say "let the baby have it's chocolate".

If you're new to Misplaced Pages, please see Welcome to Misplaced Pages or frequently asked questions. If you need editing help, head here.

Gibraltarian people

Thanks, I believe RedCoat has already dealt with it. Regards, --Gibmetal 77 16:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks, Roger Davies 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Derry

Yes I am aware. The whole imbroglio over the name leaves me cold, edit warring over whether it was changed from Derry or to Londonderry seems even more crazy than the dispute over the transitional name for Zimbabwe-Rhodesia/Rhodesia-Zimbabwe. But they are all capable of calling an admin if it gets beyond 3RR. Rich Farmbrough, 13:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC).

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Your block in the Spanish Misplaced Pages

Hi Justin, I've left you a message in your discussion page in the Spanish Misplaced Pages. You've been unblocked and your discussion page unprotected. Although you didn't break the 3RR rule, your editions, as you know, are disruptive, even considering the English Misplaced Pages standards.

Some things you did it wrong:

Edit warring: even if you "only" reverted once a day, you were removing editions that were both attributed (to the Argentinean Army) and sourced (there is even a British source).
Lack of explanations for your edition: even if your Spanish is poor, the proper way of explaining editions, especially when there is an edit war is the discussion page of the article, not the edition summary. Using generic statements (in English!) such as "fails NPOV" is not a proper way of explaining why you are edit warring (mind that here in the Spanish wikipedia, we tend to be quite understanding when people has difficulty in making herself understood; we don't have rules preventing people from using languages other than Spanish). You've even allowed to use English in the Administrators' Board, even answering to an alert in Spanish!!! (BTW, the alert only requested you to explain the reasons of your reversions in the discussion page, something that you consistently refused to do)
POV: yes, the edition you're deleting again and again is POV. However, the very manual on NPOV in the English Misplaced Pages teaches how to deal with this particular case. See Misplaced Pages:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance: "Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it."

Moreover, some of your comments on the issue are totally reprehensible and could be considered, as you like to name it, patronizing and even racist (I know the story about your descent, it's not necessary to mention it again). See:

You're free to explain your editions in the appropriate place, but please, don't start an edit war again. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Accusing someone of making racist statements is a pretty serious thing Ecemaml, and something I suggest you strike out. You appear to be making the mistake of confusing the Spanish[REDACTED] as being synonymous with Spain and the Spanish people. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Narson, its fine, I don't think Ecemaml is actually accusing me of racism. More that certain editors on the Spanish[REDACTED] made assumptions about my origins and interpreted my comments. He at least had the good grace to revert a bad block on the Spanish wikipedia. Justin talk 10:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

River coordinates

FYI WP:GEO has a whole page somewhere on dealing with linear features. Ah, here we are. In this case the obvious answer is to do the mouth, where it should be biggest. Obviously a single coordinate doesn't describe something as complex as a river, but it's still useful to tie it to a coordinate. Partly because it's still useful to give readers a rough idea of where it is (particularly in conjunction with the new dimension attribute), partly because if it doesn't have a coord, it won't appear on Google/Bing/etc Maps, where "locals" may be able to see it and be sucked into improving the article. Don't worry about Moody Brook, I was literally about to start work on the UK OT coords, and wondered what had happened to it! <g> 82.3.241.225 (talk) 11:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators, Roger Davies 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Span

There are reasons whyy several of us do not edit there any moore. Try suggesting that Pinochet was the president, and you will get banned.--Die4Dixie (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

A favour

Sorry, I just read you post on my talk page now. I must say I sympathise with you but try not to stress out too much just for your own good : )

He hasn't replied today so I'll just keep an eye out for the moment... Regards, --Gibmetal 77 11:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Imperial/Metric Order Preference

Justin, Please see my comments at Template talk:Infobox Country#Imperial/Metric Order Preference. Peter Horn User talk 14:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Jor 70: clueless

A complete surprise for me, Justin. Unfortunately, I have no e-mail adress, no es:Misplaced Pages account to contact him. I hope he can rejoin WP soon.--Darius (talk) 12:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm back

I could even try and edit a Gibraltar article :-p (it's a joke). See you soon --Ecemaml (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC for War of the Pacific

Hi Justin,

I started a RfC in the Talk Page in order to improve War of the Pacific. I would appreciate your opinion and advice to the theme. Please, feel free to improve the grammer, style or spelling of the text. --Keysanger (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Justin, thank you for your kindly welcome. I did explain my changes in the discussion page, as you possibly know. And I agree with you. A summary is needed. What is not needed is a false statement. As carefully explained (limited by my poor English), your edition was simply misleading and not supported by sources. Albornoz edition was balanced, proper and carefully supported by sources. And a good summary I should say. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 09:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC) PS: it seems that my edition in Rosas article remains. Fine!! :-)

Well, the amount of the "atrocities" was not large (fortunately). However, we're trying to describe why 4,000 people left his home town and fled to nowhere. There are several options: say nothing and leave as a Nature phenomena (not proper), explaining what the most of the authors think the real causes (the precedents of the English takeover of Cadiz some years before, some (not many) atrocities of the sailors, the fear to reprisals...; you see, twenty words); removing most of it and leaving only part (those not related to the atrocities by the English/Dutch side). It doesn't seem a balanced edition (I mean, it's as if we talk about the NATO raids in Yugoslavia and avoid mentioning the ethnic cleaning that took place before, with the argument of summarizing). Finally, with regard to bleach of copyright... well, the quotes are introduced as references, so its use is proper. I guess that a so verbose quote is needed since some editors intend to deny what they say. However, I agree with you that once verified, a so verbose quote is not needed. But again, sourced interpretations are being selectively removed. And that leads to a biased result. Regards --Ecemaml (talk) 12:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Philip II?

I guess you're not well informed. Philip II did not persecute English protestants. I guess you're referring to his wife, Bloody Mary, a Catholic English subject (as most of Gibraltarians, I should say :-)) Don't worry, I'll provide sources. And please, take a new look at WP:SECONDARY. If you find "reliable" secondary sources stating that the Spanish population of Gibraltar escaped because of the atrocities of Philip II, please, don't hesitate to include it (as with the secondary sources I'll provide on the precedents of the English sack of Cadiz). Otherwise... --Ecemaml (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You see, when reading Marian Persecutions (persecutions started in 1553 and Mary got married in 1554), it seems that your statement on evil Spanish king is sort of primary investigation :-) That's the reason why I strongly advocate following policies and using secondary sources (I mean, you're right with English/Spanish atrocities, there is an endless lot, but we only record those that, according to secondary sources, are relevant to the point we're discussing... and this one is the Exodus of the Spanish population of Gibraltar). On the other hand, I think that your impression on Albornoz is wrong. Coming from a different culture to a "foreign"[REDACTED] may lead to think that there is lack of empathy or collaboration skills, but it happens in both ways and is not usually true (beyond sociopaths as User:Gibraltarian). After a lot of problems here I trully think that most of us are sensible guys trying to stick to policies from our particular and distinct background. And it leads to misunderstandings. On the other hand, as I know that you're quite worried about verbatim quotation of texts... what do you think about Economy of Gibraltar#Interaction with the nearby area? I can accept that it is allowed to copy from Gibnews' site but it seems that what is shown in Gibnews' site is the executive summary of Fletcher report. To avoid misunderstandings, I'd prefer, if possible, you to talk to Gibnews. Best regards (I'm going to sleep :-)) --Ecemaml (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue, my friend, is that this sentence ("and a fear of reprisals following the murder of English and Dutch sailors meant that few inhabitants dared to remain") is simply unsourced by any significant secondary source. And you're wrong when you say "Spanish attrocities must be mentioned". Well, "Spanish attrocities" must be mentioned if considered relevant by significant secondary sources. And you know there arent't. Regards --Ecemaml (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to gibnews.net, a website operated by Gibnews (as described some time ago in a discussion you took part in, see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 21#Gibnews.net and User:Gibnews). The issue is that, as I told you, Economy of Gibraltar#Interaction with the nearby area is verbatim copied from here. I hadn't found the licensing conditions and I thought it was a copyright violation. However, it seems it isn't (in here: "It is assumed that all text material submitted by external content providers is available for general publication and is free of copyright"). So there's no problem. See you --Ecemaml (talk) 12:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't care

Hi Justin,

I see you will attempt to help to improve the article. I am sorry, but I can't help. I don't care to discuss with semi-illiterate people who ignore the basic rules of Misplaced Pages (reliable sources, difference between primary and secondary sources, due weight, no personal attacks) and worse they don't want to read it. They consider a well known historian, probably the best one of the matter, from a non-involved country too partial but don't hesitate to cite a unknown one from the involved country. They find to excesive to ask for complete citations (author, page, text) because of the "assume good faith" rule. You will see the difference between what they say and what they actually do.

A long time ago, as I abandonned the spanish Misplaced Pages, I learnt that my good will is not enough to improve an article if there aren't sufficient knowledge and disposition to learn under the mayority of wikipedians interested in the issue.

With your undisputable impartiality and and some knowledge of the customs of that corner you meet the best conditions to help. I wish you all the best.

I will continue my modest contribution to[REDACTED] (and learn english), when I think that the content of my contribution outweighs the disadvantages of my weak english. --Keysanger (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks

On my page you said: "I saw your mediation cabal case listing. After looking at the article, the edit history and the contribution history of User:Parserpractice I fairly quickly came to the conclusion that the article is seriously deficient in terms of WP:NPOV and violates WP:SYN, WP:NOR, WP:BLP as well as WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. It also appears that the editor in question is not amenable to discussion. I seriously doubt that mediation is appropriate in this case, the editor in question appears to see[REDACTED] as a platform to right great wrongs and in my experience such editors are single-minded and mission-orientated. I would suggest you raise this at WP:AN/I. Regards, Justin talk 11:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)"

Thank you Justin. I'm still kinda new as a WP editor, and I didn't know I could check on my own page for messages. And I don't know if this is the right way to respond to you either. But thanks.

Mediation Cabal member The Wordsmith took on our case with a couple postings and suggestions we both could live with, but none of the tricky stuff was addressed, just some citation problems. But the last time we heard from The Wordsmith was 12:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC). Our mediation page (Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-10-13/U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks) has simply become an extension of the discussion page for that article -- highly verbose and seriously messy, though less verbally abusive.

I've thought this was a bigger mess than we should present to the Mediation Cabal, but I wanted to follow procedures. If I file something on the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page, may I quote what you've said to me?

Thanks for looking into this, and for your suggestions. Dcs002 (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I did quote you as I filled out the Admin noticeboard page. Dcs002 (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

I reverted your revert of my change to the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands article because Britain doesn't claim sovereignty over the islands. Britain exercises sovereignty over the islands because it occupies them. There's a difference between claiming sovereignty and exercising it. Any country which occupies a territory exercises sovereignty over it. Other countries may claim the right to sovereignty over a particular territory. No territory in the world except Antactica is devoid of a particular country occupying it and exercising sovereignty over it. In this case Britain occupies the islands and exercises sovereignty over them while Argentina does not occupy the islands but claims it has a right to occupy them and exercise sovereignty over them accordingly. Bambuway (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again Britain does not claim the right to occupy the islands and exercise sovereignty over them because it already does. Do you not get the difference between the two? Bambuway (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

May be they are just 'kidding' :o)

This place is plenty of people who still think of WP as a forum or a blog, dear Justin. I had to deal with them a couple of times, most notably here, and I think that zero tolerance is the best way. Sometimes the discussion with trolls, vandals or PoV warriors can be funny, sometimes boring, but the onus of protecting Misplaced Pages resides on the admins, not on us. If an editor gets berserk because someone called him "kid" and retaliates by calling the other user "senil", the responsibility of the administrators is to intervene in a decisive way according to WP policies, not just to keep hovering over.--Darius (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy

Alright then. I did not receive any notes concerning your comments in Atama's page, nor when the AN/I was filed and the like, but I see your point. Cremallera (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

As requested. You may be interested in this. Cremallera (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Collapsed it for you there. Now will you do yourself a favour and go have a dram and a snooze? --Narson ~ Talk • 23:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Really? I'd kill to be able to drink. And hardly playing to stereotypes there. I hope you had the decency to pick up a heroin addiction to compensate! (I've been campaigning and studying all year, so my brain is a bit behind). You shouldn't let the accusations get to you Justin. It will just wind you up and allows the threads to get de-railed while you are worn down. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

PTSD? A throw back to the 80s? I've edited the RFC intro to try and make it a bit less judgmental. I believe truths will be self evident. Thre is a degree of baiting going on, there is also the fact that it is frustrating to explain what is self evident to someone else because of their misreading of a foreign language combined with stubbornness. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Got to run a political office tomorrow. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: Merry Christmas

You too Justin, hope the holidays help you feel better! At the very least you get to spend some fun time with your family rather than watching the Gib articles. Your blood pressure is important at your age old chap. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Likewise Merry Christmas ! You may find this rather good. --Gibnews (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas for you too, my friend

Thanks Justin. I wish you a happy 2010. Cheers!.--Darius (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

...to you too Justin! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 01:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Justin, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and your family! Apcbg (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Merry Christmas

A very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and your family too! --Gibmetal 77 23:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too, Justin! RedCoat10 • talk 19:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Alleged Minion

I would like to thank you, my alleged minion, in this festive season. So often are evil geniuses hiring low quality minions, I am glad I found one of such quality. On a more serious tone, the IP who accused us of being a tag team (Because, y'know, the fact we disagree half the time is clearly a cunning strategy) is still going on about it. I believe a checkuser has confirmed we are unrelated, so hopefully that should kill off that load of horse muck, but if not I wouldn't worry. We can always rely on our secret cabal. After all, redcoat is secretly a sock of Jimbo. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

What appears to be PalestineRemembered accused us of being part of a cabal tagteaming etc, then included Redcoat because Redcoat reverted some of his ranting. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That was Henry and WorldFacts. PR was a long term established editor who finally went off reservation. And it just happened that the blocking admin was a checkuser etc, so it was easy for him to run the numbers and confirm it was all nonsense, barring the use of methods to obscure our real IPs or somesuch (All beyond me, TBH). Removes the rug from under the ranting though. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: Gibraltar

It isn't you that has me worried Justin. Though, yes, you do need to stop rising to bait or getting frustrated. I thought Imalbornoz has been trying hard, but there are two editors who seem detirmined to make this a nationalist issue rather than a simple issue of writing pages on an encyclopedia. I think I'm done to be honest. There is a world on wiki outside of that. And it isn't an area I really feel passionate about. --Narson ~ Talk • 01:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Pablo Carballo‎

Copyedit to the first version please --Jor70 (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ambuscade

Justin

I think that the review would have more chance of success of the article only talked about Ambuscade and the Pakistani ship had it's own article. As it stands the article could be illustrated by an image of the Pakistani variant. I happen to agree with you about using other T21s, they're not an illustration of the ship so can't substitute.

The US imagery argument is specious unless it can be demonstrated that there is one.

ALR (talk) 10:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Britlink.org

Britlink.org is a personal website run by a guy here in Denmark. It is not anywhere near being a reliable source. When I say linkspam in my edit summary I do so because I've investigated it prior to removing it. In the future I would appreciate if you would contact me first before reverting. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Slagator

Thanks for telling me of this development. I'm leaving on vacation on a few hours, I took some minutes to place a warning here about my absense, and I may not have ever known about this (I return in 3 weeks, and by then all this will be deeply buried in archived pages and outdated watchlists). I'll see you on february MBelgrano (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Bluff Cove Disaster

I deleted one of the redirects you tagged and left the other up since it's a sensible search term. For future reference you might want to look at speedy deletion criteria R3 and G7 which would apply - you tagged one of the pages as a category, which isn't quite right.

I've also made some other comments on the article itself, including its name - you might want to see the talk page and comment. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The British Overseas Territories Barnstar
		I, RedCoat10, hereby award you the British Overseas Territories Barnstar for your contributions to the Gibraltar article.

It was about time someone did! Cheers, RedCoat10 (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop reverting

My concerns raised on the talk page are valid and I am a long-standing Wikipedian, an admin from 2005 if I remember right, and your reversion is uncivil and you appear to be ascribing nationalistic motives to my actions - this is false, I am English. Either statement about self-government has a POV, removal during discussion supports neither POV. I have made suggestions about how to cover the matter in a way that will not lead to perennial revert wars and am currently formulating an RfC. Please engage in these processes rather than simply reverting to your preferred POV. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I wasn't reverting to my preferred POV but actually a neutral summary. I'll see what the RFC says though it goes against my better judgement. All you're doing is emboldening the disruptive editors. Justin talk 12:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

To make it plain I'm not planning further reverts. Justin talk 12:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Request

May I request that you reconsider your 24 hr block of JzG to time served. I agree that he should have known better but at this stage the block is becoming punitive rather than preventative. It may well become counter productive. Regards, Justin talk 18:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to respond; I was in transit. However, although I wouldn't care if anyone overturned the block, I'm not going to do so. Another administrator tended to JzG's unblock request and declined it. -- tariqabjotu 13:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Gibraltar

Hi Justin, sorry for the late replay. Believe me if I say that I hadn't seen your message (Gibmetal's one was the one highlighted by mediawiki and I didn't guess there was a message from you just before).

I appreciate your offer and I'd like to accept it (really). But I must be frank with you. I don't know what such an offer means. I feel extremely disappointed when I'm referred to as people making "tendentious comments". Or when my legitimate messages to you are removed without being read and against all the conventions and guidelines that rule the way user talk pages should be handled. Or when my editions are simply reverted, with poor arguments and destroying a large amount of valid work (you can see the last example Talk:Disputed status of the isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain#Unjustified reversionshere). So, my direct question is crystal-clear: would you stop your verbal abuse against me? would you allow messages in your talk page as long as they're civil? would you avoid reverting my work unless there is a comprehensive explaination and given that only disputed editions are reverted? If so, the deal is done (of course that you can, in fact you should, complain about whatever behavior from my side that you find uncivil or disruptive... I apologize about saying your attitude was troublemaker (I wanted to say it was "troubemaking" as I was referring to your attitude, not to you; anyway, it was an unhelpful comment). Otherwise, things will go on in the same way as now. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The deal is done from my side. I don't enjoy making enemies. However, I do ask a precise action. I won't accept in the future massive reversions as with the article on the disputed status of the isthmus. If you disagree with a specific edition, revert only such an edition. If so, there will be no argument from my side. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You should know better...

..than to leave an edit summary like the one accompanying this edit. – ukexpat (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually a huge Billy Connelly fan. I understand the frustration, but it was still inappropriate. – ukexpat (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. – ukexpat (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

English

Flights Dogo and Mastín with four A-4B each carrying three 500 lb retarding tail bombs

How did you understand each here: A-4s or bombs ? --Jor70 (talk) 10:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A4s mate. Read as: There are four A4s in both Dogo and Mastin flights. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Offences

Thanks for the heads up. :-) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 01:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Chi-Chi Nwanoku

Attention, fellow Wikipedian! The Misplaced Pages community thanks you for your contributions. Unfortunately, however, your article may not meet WIkipedia's quality guidelines. The following table details some of the issues.

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)

No issues specified. Please specify issues, or remove this template.

(Learn how and when to remove this message)

Quinxorin (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar / San Roque

I have amended the wording slightly of the sentence describing San Roque, please alter your vote accordingly if you do not agree with the revised edition. It won't be altered again, but on reflection there is no evidence for the word majority. --Gibnews (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

A well intentioned suggestion

Hello Justin. Your most recent post is crossing the line into commenting on contributors rather than content . Do you remember when you didn't like it when I was getting worked up and replying too often (and that amusing "contribution graph" you composed?!). Well, that's you now! I'm not saying that to have a go at you or to bring up past disagreements, just to try to show you that you really are taking things far too seriously and personally (like I was doing then). Remember, it's only Misplaced Pages, and there are plenty of other things to be getting on with in life! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 01:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh! Likewise (-ish: the timing would qualify me, but not the motive. I guess that they only have your word on that one though) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 23:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Freedman

Hi, would you mind checking your Freedman Vol. II and seeing if there is any mention of the ARG surrender of Port Howard to B Coy 40 Cdo please? Cardiff was ship mentioned in the naval-history source, however the RAF incorrectly attributes this to Avenger. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Argentine Naval Aviation

A ce will be appreciate it --Jor70 (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's ok with you Jor, I performed a little C/E, feel free to revert it. I tried to change only the grammar and not the content. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Jor I'm glad you mentioned this, I changed the text for clarity.

As it reads now, it teases the reader into reading the next paragraph, this is frowned upon especially an alternative can be so easily found.

Also re: clarity, it's not entirely clear that the upcoming event you're referring to is the Falklands War. In the next paragraph you mention: the dirty war, tensions with Chile and poor economic performance. So it could been mistaken for any of those three. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I get your point but I would like to raccount the events chronologically and the war is ligated to the junta which is needed to be explained before the war itself. What about changing events by an unforeseeable future event ? and why are we dirtying Justin's page ? :-) --Jor70 (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I'd say "an unforeseeable future event" is worse than what we have now. I'm sure Justin won't mind, in fact I'm hoping he'll add his thoughts. Article's do not have to form a timeline, but I'm happy to leave it to your discretion :) Ryan4314 (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to use my talk page, you guys are always welcome. Justin talk 18:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging

Justin,

I just noticed that N2e has been plaguing you with drive-by tagging. He has done the same with the article about "Atmospheric Reentry" and deleted a significant fraction of the article because it didn't meet his high standards.

I can't be bothered to get into a revert war with this guy. I'm only mentioning this to you in the hope that should you have any success with N2e then could you please inform me. I'll then revert everything back to where it was before he stuck his nose in. Otherwise I'll wait until N2e gets tired of the game and then I'll revert everything back.

Thanks!

Egg plant (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)