User talk:Kahastok/Archive 6

Falklands map
Hey, why did you remove the map I made from the article? It took me all morning making it for you just to remove it. The article provides important data on names in Spanish with the geography of the islands in english. Please DO NOT remove it again. Thanks--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid it doesn't matter if it took you all morning. I have several objections, and do not consider it appropriate to this article.  It gives undue prominence to the use of Argentine-derived names in English - more prominence indeed than is given to the use of British-derived names - where it is the British-derived names that are in common use in English and are the only ones used on the islands themselves.  It is largely irrelevant to the islands themselves: remember that that is an article not on the sovereignty dispute but on the islands themselves. Pfainuk talk 18:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, you are not getting it. Is not about the relevance of the names in Spanish or English, is about the relevance of the terms as Bahia Spanish for Bay, Estrecho Spanish for Strait. The map is a map with Spanish names but with the denominations of geographic terms in ENGLISH. There are two kind of maps, the one with full terms in English and one with full terms in Spanish I am filling the gap with this map. The fact that you want to give prominence to the English derivative names is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV.Especially if we keep in mind the fact that you are an English citizen. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith. I have responded to your RFC, noting that it is far too early to be filing RFC on this. Pfainuk talk 20:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I also doubt Pfainuk is an English citizen, as there is no such thing. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 21:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Falklands war
After the war, that "popular culture" intensified as never before, in the consciousness of Argentine people, that's because I added that. Could you, instead of delete, talk about? Alakasam (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
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 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 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) 23:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence
Good writeup (I mean that honestly) but diffs are extremely important in this process. The arbitrators aren't going to read through page and page of our dialogues and so we need to explicitly point to examples of the behaviour we think needs changing. For example, if you feel I have baited Justin, instead of waving your hand in the air and saying I do it, find where you think I have and post diffs. That gives me a chance to explain myself and the arbitrators can decide for themselves whether the accusation is correct. I spent a long time collecting evidence, but everything I raised is supported with a diff which the other party can respond to specifically if they choose. The bottom line is it's a lot harder to prove a negative than to prove a positive. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ps I think it's akin to feedback processes in organizations - employees are asked to give examples of start/stop/continue behaviours and not just state generalizations. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you have misunderstood, Pfainuk. The title of that section is "Motions and requests by the parties".  I'm not trying to get a motion filed against you - that is not even the section for it - I was requesting that no party make claims without supporting diffs.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

San Roque and attempted intervention
At this diff you mention "A final note, Richard's attempt mediation as a claimed neutral was well-intentioned, unsuccessful and (given that he had a personal preference in the dispute) probably ill-advised with hindsight. But we don't shoot people for making well-intentioned errors. Atama has been very much more successful. Pfainuk talk 17:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)"

Thanks for your praise. I'd just like to point out that my response to the the RfC at the diff you quote was the first time I'd ever even heard of San Roque. I responded to Atama's RfC (so any praise should be shared with Atama). I'd looked through the talk history, came to a conclusion, expressed it as above, and later realized that this wasn't going to be nearly enough to solve the problem. At this diff I tried to start a more structured process, which - well, here we are at Arbcom. Anyway, the thing is, just for clarity, I came to the dispute without any personal preferences or indeed knowledge. In retrospect I would have avoided any such simple comment and would have gone straight to something more definitive. Thanks for your comments, and also for not shooting me. :-) Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I don't think anyone quite realised how far this particular dispute was going to go.  We've discussed stuff on that talk page for months on end before (if you're really bored you can look up the archives from April to August 2008 to see us doing exactly that), and outside intervention has worked before.  My point was more that taking on the position of moderator after having given an opinion made that job significantly harder by leaving your impartiality open to question.  But this is a case of 20/20 hindsight - obviously we didn't know it wasn't going to work in December. Pfainuk talk 20:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Evidence
Hello. Your evidence on the above page stands at over 1300 words. The limit is 1000. Please refactor it within the next 24 hours or a clerk will do it for you. Regards,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sorting that out promptly - much appreciated.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 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) 22:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Falkland Islands
What was wrong with my statement about the reforms? The two above paragraphs make a statement about Thatcher's policies, yet you targeted mine?

ValenShephard


 * They talk about those parts of Thatcher's legacy that directly result from the war. This is logical.  Your edit was an unnecessary political comment on Thatcher's domestic economic policies, without connection to the war.  It was both POV and irrelevant. Pfainuk talk 12:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Lowering tension
I have apologised for raising tension with the 3RR. My only intention was to make it clear to Justin that his usual behaviour (reverting, suspecting POV...) was not right, not to raise tension (my mistake) or to extend the conflict (I really hope that does not happen). Now I have something to ask from you which I think is not totally out of place (given that you seem to have a somewhat close wikirelationship with Justin and you seem to care about him and the articles where he edits): can you help make him more trusting and collaborative towards other editors in the Gibraltar articles? (that includes telling him when he is "taking sides" or doing something that raises tension or that runs the risk of disrupting the article -the same way that you have told me).

Also, when we get back to editing the Gibraltar article (Justin a bit later if he gets finally banned), it's evident that some of us have different views on some points of the article. Can you think of a way to solve our disputes without getting into Arbcom again? Thank you very much. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 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) 19:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

American Football at UK Universities
Hi, I thought you might be interested in the following WP:TFD. I have also just nominated ARU Phantoms for deletion here Pit-yacker (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:


 * Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Gibraltar or other articles concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioral standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.
 * Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard) or the Arbitration Committee.
 * is topic-banned from editing the Gibraltar article and other articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar, broadly construed, for one year. Should Gibnews return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so.
 * Gibnews is strongly warned that nationally or ethnically offensive comments are prohibited on Wikipedia and that substantial sanctions, up to a ban from the site, will be imposed without further warning in the event of further violations.
 * is topic-banned from editing Gibraltar  and other articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar, broadly construed, for three months. Should Justin A Kuntz return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so.
 * is admonished for having, at times, assumed bad faith and edited tendentiously concerning the history and political status of Gibraltar.
 * Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary.
 * Any editor who is closely associated with a particular source or website relating to the subject of Gibraltar or any other article is reminded to avoid editing that could be seen as an actual or apparent attempt to promote that source or website or to give it undue weight over other sources or website in an article's references or links. To avoid even the appearance of impropriety, it may be best in these circumstances to mention the existence of the source or website on the talkpage, and allow the decision whether to include it in the article to made by others.

For the Arbitration Committee, ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Hi. As this affects an edit you made, I didn't want it to get lost in all the edits I've been doing, so I wanted to draw your attention to it. My thoughts were that, even though the passing of the Act happened in the past, the provisions of the 1981 Acts not replaced by the 2002 Act, and of course the 2002 Act itself, are still in force today, so they are really a matter of "politics" rather than "history". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. I wasn't entirely happy with the way it sat in the history section when I wrote it.  But I rather feel that if we're going to go on about "Crown Colony", we need the other names or else look like we're trying to make a political point. Pfainuk talk 19:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree: the colony mention should definitely be in the history section. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected
The request for mediation concerning Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010, to which you were are a party, has been rejected. Full details are at the case page (which will be deleted after a reasonable time). If you have any queries, please contact a committee mediator or the mediation mailing list. For the Mediation Committee, AGK  20:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC) (This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.) <

Polite Request
It appears that we were both working on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group at the same time. I posted three minutes before you with the result that the two postings run into each other. Please indent your posting. Martinvl (talk) 06:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Indenting wouldn't make sense, since I was responding to Michael. I shall respond to yours to make it clearer. Pfainuk talk 06:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

3RR
A have noticed that you have violated the WP:3RR in Geology of the Falkland Islands, please abstain further reverts until the matter is solved. Wikipedia has mechanism to solve disputes. So please do not engage in edit warring. Chiton magnificus (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Uhm. 3 reverts is not a breach of 3RR. 4 reverts is. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 11:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Now arn't I silly Pfain. Sorry about the revert on the wikiproject talk page, it is what I get for having big fingers and an iPhone! Didn't realise I'd ballsed up and reverted you until I got on my laptop. Apologies. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 21:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries. I didn't notice in any case until after the event. Pfainuk talk 18:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)