User talk:Kahastok/Archive 14

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017
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) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Is (part of) EF English Proficiency Index to be deleted?
You kindly made me understand some of the criterias for wikipedia articles. Is the article EF English Proficiency Index established and written in conformity with these WP criteria? See my comment on the talk page there. --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Reply to your comment on RfC
I am replying here since you were discussing my personal behavior and it is irrelevant to the RfC. First, no. None of my proposals are non-negotiable. And yes, evidently I oppose you guys rewriting the whole article on the basis of your extremely politicized editing. For crying out loud, you two mainly edit on articles about the Falklands and Gibraltar (two British overseas territories involving a territorial dispute with a Hispanic country) in a way which to an outside observer seems like very aggressive political activism. Don't forget that it was the crazy behavior regarding Conversos and Jews (admittedly more from WCM than you) that drew my attention to this article in the first place! Some other editors may have seen you edit in a more positive and honest way (I assume on stuff which you don't feel so strongly about) but I just haven't. We know what the deal is so lets just stick to the arguments as per policy rather than discussing each other. I'm not going to accuse either of you of anything from now on or question your motives. I just want fair and neutral articles on wikipedia and will focus on discussing content, policy, sources and rational arguments in a polite non-snarky way. I expect the same from you and WCM.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * There have only been two editors in the past who have proved unable to edit this page without personal attacks and accusations. I'm afraid you appear to be the third.  If you are not willing to edit my talk page without the sorts of personal attacks and accusations contained in the above, please do not edit it at all. Kahastok talk 16:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017
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) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI
, As I'm under a voluntary 1RR restriction I won't be able to revert again. WCM email 13:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:


 * tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
 * updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
 * creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 2017
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) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXII, April 2017
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) 23:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIII, May 2017
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) 03:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands. Since you had some involvement with the Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.

It seems the proposer was less than thorough with notifying people involved in previous discussions. WCM email 22:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Deleted comment

 * Please be more careful when editing talk pages, this edit deleted a comment of mine. - Nick Thorne  talk  12:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIV, June 2017
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) 12:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXV, July 2017
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) 07:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVI, August 2017
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) 13:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVII, September 2017
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) 23:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVIII, October 2017
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) 23:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIX, November 2017
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) 13:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting
As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXL, December 2017
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) 11:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPA
I think this your comment crosses the line. You put in my mouth something I never said. Among other things, you tell about my "attempts to divine out of thin air". No, I only quoted scholarly RS. That is what they tell, no me. You, on the other hand, failed to produce a single scholarly RS during the entire discussion to support your assertions. My very best wishes (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, so far as I can tell my text was an entirely accurate summation of your argument - an argument that you are still making. If you don't like people pointing out that your arguments are absurd, don't make absurd arguments. Kahastok talk 20:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I never "seriously argued that Iran, Syria, Lebanon all recognise Israel as a legitimate independent state". And so on, and so on. If you think that I said something, you must be able to support your claims with diffs. You simply invented something and incorrectly claimed this to be my opinion. If you do not understand it, this is not my problem. My very best wishes (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You argued - argue - that there are seven disputed states in the world, and that Israel isn't one of them. The conclusion is obvious and inescapable.  If you don't like that, change your argument. Kahastok talk 21:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do not do it again. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but you continue doing the same . I removed it from my section of survey. My very best wishes (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You are not allowed to remove comments from RFCs solely because you do not like them. You do not have your own section of the survey, neither do I.  There has to be a good reason per WP:TPO and in this case there clearly isn't. Kahastok talk 19:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In the diff above you tell to me: You're proposing to remove these entries that pass the criteria because they don't pass some other subjective criteria of your own. Once again, you blamed me of something I did not do. WP:NPA violations can be actually removed. But OK, I am letting this stay in wrong section of the RfC because you insist. My very best wishes (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * That is not a personal attack. It's an accurate summary of your position.  On the previous point I did little more than take your own argument to its logical conclusion.  So far as I can tell, what you are demanding in this section is that I not make any argument that demonstrates the flaws in your proposals. Kahastok talk 20:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, this is not an accurate summary of my position. And no, this is not a logical conclusion of my argument. You are very welcome to express your opinion, whatever it might be. But you are not welcome to make a mockery of comments by other contributors. My very best wishes (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I find this comment does little to alter my impression of what you want here. If you or anyone else makes a proposal that I believe is flawed, I see no reason why I should feel the need to pretend that it is not.  And doing so is not in any way a personal attack. Kahastok talk 20:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Then let me explain. Consider this your comment. It could be mocked or (mis)interpreted in a number of ways. For example, one could say that you came to the project your argument is to support Russia and fight against reliable sources because they are "Western". But I did not tell it. This is something you do, although in a different way, by distorting my comments. My very best wishes (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It is astonishing that an editor with your experience would not be aware of the clear and obvious difference between claiming that an editor is acting in bad faith on one hand, and pointing out the flaws in their arguments on the other. Kahastok talk 21:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, my apology. I fixed it. But does it really make a lot of difference? I am simply giving you an example of misinterpreting a comment by another contributor. My very best wishes (talk)

List of states
Hi. I am sorry for interrupting, but if I could, I would like to ask if there is something wrong after your last edit to the article List of sovereign states, because now it looks in that way: "so long as it was not "obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure"[Improper synthesis?]". I mean, there is the information about that category right after the text. Rregardless of the fact it looks ugly, it just looks like some kind of a mistake. Thanks in advance. Greetings. Jojnee (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi - thanks for noticing that, yes it was a mistake. I've sorted it out by doing it in a different way. Kahastok talk 18:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * No problem. Thanks :) Jojnee (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC) I've read a little bit about that matter and it seems that the statement in the article is, in fact, correct (the synthesis is proper) as the Montevideo Convention article says: "An important part of the convention was a prohibition of using military force to gain sovereignty. According to Article 11 of the Convention, The contracting states definitely establish the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or advantages that have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure", and the Sovereign state article states "According to declarative theory, an entity's statehood is independent of its recognition by other states, as long as the sovereignty was not gained by military force". Doesn't it mean we should remove the "improper synthesis?" tag? :) Best wishes. Jojnee (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Your Comments Were Deleted
Just an FYI, user: My very best wishes, just deleted some of your comments on the List of Sovereign States talk page. Diffs are here []. Regards XavierGreen (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. They do not have my permission to do this, so it breaks WP:TPO.  I have reverted and asked them not to do it again. Kahastok talk 19:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I do not think what the other user had done in editing your comments was correct, but after joining one of the discussions under a survey reply, I thought it was getting quite long, and was no longer related to the survey response it was a reply to. I tried to move it to the discussion section in a more neutral way (simply moving all the comments in that single reply thread), in accordance with WP:TPO guidelines on sectioning and editing for clarity. If you disagree with this change, please revert it. Seeing your disagreement about having comments moved, I should have asked you beforehand, sorry if you feel this move was undue as well. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion has become longer and more involved, and to my mind it makes a difference that you are not actively trying to get rid of the discussion in question (as MVBW did in his first edit by just deleting the response entirely). On the other hand, part of the point is that my post was a direct response to MVBW's post, and this meaning is lost by moving it.  If you were to add a comment in context noting that the point has been moved to the discussion section it would be better I think. Kahastok talk 14:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Because the context is now far less clear and in response to this, I have removed the thread back to its original position. Kahastok talk 15:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, that makes sense. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians
Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)