User talk:BedsBookworm

Welcome!

 * }

David Jewett
It seems all of the David Jewett related pages have masses of unsourced speculative material in them at the moment. On of the claims is that Weddell thought Jewett's voyage was chiefly intended for the purpose of securing an exclusive claim to the wreck of the French ship Uranie and that Weddell "didn't believe" Jewett. None of this is in the Weddell text. Is there any source that makes these claims? If not they should be removed en masse. __ E L A Q U E A T E  19:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry accusation
I note that you're accusing me on talk pages of having some kind of WP:MEAT puppetry association with Cambalachero. You should take this matter to the appropriate place (WP:SPI? Not sure). Otherwise, please stop doing it. --Langus (t) 22:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read my comments more carefully. I didn't accuse you of Meat Puppetry but commented on reverting to insert dubiously sourced material from a topic banned editor; one banned for POV editing. On my first interaction with you, you were accusing me of POV editing. Coming here with that comment smacks of gross hypocrisy.  Please cut out the personal crap, its the content we should discuss not each other. BedsBookworm (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Google Cite tool
The Google Cite tool creates a label for the citation. It creates the same label each time, so if you repeatedly use it, the reference is overwritten.

I'll fix it for you on David Jewett. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

PS on an unrelated matter, I see you've linked User:Cambalachero and User:Langus-TxT. Having had experience of both over the years I don't think it is the case. User:Cambalachero is a reasonable editor and whilst clearly a strong advocate of the Argentine POV is more than capable of compromising to agree on a WP:NPOV text. His main mistake in the topic ban was using sources from the Argentine revisionist movement, which has a habit of distorting history in advance of Peronism. They're accepted mainstream in Argentina, not so well accepted outside of the country. And I personally considered the arbcom result somewhat one sided, see for the reason why. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

PPS Sorry got the article wrong, it was History of the Falkland Islands. As a suggestion, try to add a page and quote if cites are likely to be challenged. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Unaccurate remark noted. BedsBookworm and I already had disagreements over content, and we work it out just fine (see ). That should tell you something, WCM. --Langus (t) 12:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * @User:Wee Curry Monster thanks for the help and advice.
 * @User:Langus-TxT The guy took the trouble to come to my talk page and tell me that he thinks my suspicions you were User:Cambalachero's meat puppet are wrong and you have a go at him? You're an idiot.   As to our discussion on Talk:David Jewett, if you want feedback I found you decidely obnoxious to deal with from the outset. BedsBookworm (talk) 11:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything the guy is saying about Cambalachero are alleged differences between us; it follows that he is saying that I am NOT "capable of compromising to agree on a NPOV text". I won't thank such a comment.
 * You should really follow WP:CIVIL, Beds. You were not easy to deal with either, but my point was that we worked it out anyway.
 * Cheers, and remember to WP:AGF. Langus (t) 01:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You have a persecution complex, he said nothing about you at all. I guess he didn't need to as you are dumb enough to come here and do it for him.  If you've had a spat with the guy I would thank you to not drag me into it and as regards being civil take a long look in the mirror.  Telling me to WP:AGF whilst slagging of another editor for saying nothing whatsoever tells me you're a two faced hypocrite.  Go away and stay away.  BedsBookworm (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Question
In the David Jewett article we have the written declaration and a newspaper crop, so I can understand the rationale behind the edit there. But in the Heroina (ship) article, there was no image. You both added it and removed the text in one edit, i.e. you replaced one declaration for another. Could you explain why would you do that?

Also, note that both declarations are not identical: one is the letter given to Weddell while the other is the letter given to Capt. Orne, from Salem, MA. --Langus (t) 19:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do I have to explain it to you? It seemed the logical thing to do, since you were the one wanting the image in there. What the heck is your problem.  BedsBookworm (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh... you don't have "to explain it to me" but it is expected that editors understand each other's edit; that's why we have an edit summary field. In that summary you said "as per D.Jewett put in the image as well" and in David Jewett you said "rm duplication we don't need the declaration twice". It didn't make sense, as there was no "duplication" in Heroina to start with. And per WP:MOSIM, "textual information should almost always be entered as text rather than as an image". I concur with that. --Langus (t) 21:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

WW2 and other invertebrates
=You will note that my indentation did not make this a reply to any one user. Also your user name is BedBookWorm, so it is clear he was just shortening your name. Maybe you should have a user name that is not so easily shortened to an apparent insult.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you back? Long time no see.  I'd suggest you don't refer to other editors as arseholes, even if true an admin may see it as uncivil. WCM email 14:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think WCM meant to address that to the owner of this talk page. As would I when I say 'thank you' for making me laugh with the candid appraisal of a certain user. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Falkland Islander
A couple of years ago you were involved in discussions at Falkland Islanders. I am going to do a request for comment on the claim you wanted excluded, as preparation I have prepared a (hopefully) neutral summary of discussions on the page. If you want you can ave a look and see if you think it is neutral, if you feel it is unfair comment on my talk page and I will edit the summary.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)