User talk:Kahastok/Archive 9

Notice of RfC pertaining to List of sovereign states
Hey mate. I finally got that RfC done. This is the last one, I swear! It's at Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria. Thanks,  Night w   13:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok mate. One more. Everyone's agreed to drop it after this and stick with the outcome. Thanks,  Night w   12:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving towards a stable solution at Talk:List of national anthems
I'd be grateful if you could comment on the accuracy of this comment. In my heart of hearts, I don't think that a consensus on the list's future is going to be reached without going to a wider RfC. But if we can first show that (despite at times heated arguments) we have come as close to agreement as we were ever likely to, we will at least be laying the groundwork for a relatively good-natured RfC, and hopefully a structure on which we can all agree and which will be likely to produce a stable outcome. I have posted an identical talk page message to the two other editors I mentioned in that diff. Regards, —WFC— 15:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: by "structure" I was referring to the structure of the RfC. —WFC— 15:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Cook Islands
The last time this discussion took place, you made the question of whether there were any diplomatic sources describing this state - verbatim - as an independent state (that's how I understood the question, at least). There are indeed:. I did not respond on that talk page, however, because I do not want the decision on their status to depend on circumstantial evidence. It must be clear how an entity which is "associated" may qualify as a sovereign state, and what are the differences vis a vis other cases, i.e. Puerto Rico. Ladril (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, just remembered that this was here.


 * My concern is essentially that all entries must meet the inclusion criteria. Right now that means we need evidence of either:


 * A declaration of independence plus control of populated territory.
 * Formal diplomatic recognition from any other sovereign state (which I take to require a chain back to a state that meets the first criterion).


 * In this case, the sources clearly state that Japan and the Netherlands have formally diplomatically recognised the Cook Islands as a sovereign state.


 * As a rule I would be cautious of claims of diplomatic recognition made by states with limited recognition, since in the general case they may well be exaggerating or misrepresenting a situation to argue their position in a dispute. I don't see this as a significant risk here, though I feel that Japanese/Dutch sources would still be helpful.  I did also find this source for Japanese recognition.


 * I am willing to accept, based on these sources, that the Cook Islands meet the inclusion criteria and thus should go into the article. Pfainuk talk 17:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This source is an statement by the Japanese government, another which supports the argument is . The point I'm making, however, is that besides these diplomatic statements, it's more useful to explain to encyclopedia readers how, from an international law pespective, an entity that is formally "associated" with another can be considered a separate subject of international law. Many editors have a difficult time understanding this, which makes it difficult to establish a consensus on the issue. Ladril (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette discussion
I have made an uninvolved editors comment at the current Wikiquette discussion involving the article Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands --Senra (Talk) 10:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
...for fixing my screwup. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries. I haven't been following the discussion closely, but I think I might make a comment to see if it helps. Pfainuk talk 18:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clear arguments (Re: CI and Niue on countries list)
Hi Pfainuk, I just wanted to say thanks for your lucid and consistently rational participation in the discussion about Cook Island and Niue on the List of Sovereign States talk page. I was away for a few days, but was pleased to see when I returned that you had said everything I would have wanted to say, and said it well. Keep up the good work. Evzob (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) Pfainuk talk 18:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Sorry editing while annoyed is probably not a good idea, the cheek accusing me of "filibustering" when its his favourite plot. Didn't mean to lose the IP contribution so that was a good catch. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
  "And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,   I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."  Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)  Wee Curry Monster talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

Season's Greetings
Dear Pfainuk, I wish you Merry Christmass, and good health and every success in the New Year! Best, Apcbg (talk) 08:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Can I put something on your radar?
regarding Antonio Rivero. Hard core Argentine nationalists have constructed some elaborate myths around this character, these are debunked by Argentine historians - there is a link to Destefani in the article. I have one IP editor persistently changing the article to remove historical facts, including Destefani's rebuttal and inserting the myth instead. I'm a bit loath to take it ANI as the cursory glance problems usually get there it will be dismissed as a content dispute. A request for page protection has just been declined. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Will keep an eye on it. Thanks, Pfainuk talk 22:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your removal of my edit
I have no objection to the removal of that text but if the other edit goes back, then that is a different matter. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 12:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I figured you probably wouldn't mind given the article history. And since the other edit was distinctly biased, I would also have a problem with it staying in there alone.  But even if it can all be made neutral, I feel that the whole thing strays well beyond the reasonable bounds of "Aftermath of the Falklands War", which should be dealing with the social and political change that resulted from the war. Pfainuk talk 12:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree 100%, it doesn't belong there. What I also object to is presenting unfounded allegation for which no evidence exists as fact.  Wee Curry Monster talk 12:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * IP is edit warring it back into the article. For infor -  Wee Curry Monster talk 13:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The entire Legal section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_the_Falklands_War consists of unproven allegations - that was the case before I added my bit. The pre-existing contact that you are leaving intact reads "70 Argentine military officers are currently accused..." and these people are considered innocent until proven guilty. It is therefore hypocritical to delete my content while leaving this content intact.

Everything in my bit is completely factual and heavily sourced. The pre-existing content which you are leaving intact contains the very same language ("crimes against humanity"). I am not adding any emotive language, only language that is objectively descriptive of the allegations ("war crimes" is a legal term which refers to acts such as no quarter and perfidy).

Nowhere in my bit is there any reporting of unproven allegations as fact. I am explicitly pointing out that these are allegations made by multiple British servicemen in books they have written, and that a 1994 UK government inquiry ended in a finding that the UK government did not have enough facts to sustain a prosecution.

If you disagree with the style of writing and wish to make it clearer that these are allegations (though I cannot see how this would not already be perfectly clear), then the proper remedy is to revise the language, not to delete the entire section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.189.230 (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, when the point is as irrelevant to the topic as this one is, the proper remedy is to delete it outright. If you have a problem with the existing text, you're welcome to bring it up. Pfainuk talk 14:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the existing text in the Legal section. Allegations of war crimes are in fact legitimately part of the aftermath of the Falklands conflict. Such allegations are in no way irrelevant to the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.189.230 (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear IP editor, I'd strongly suggest that you go read up on WP:UNDUE before commenting further. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 10:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Austerity programme -- see talk page
United Kingdom Conservative-Liberal coalition government austerity programme You don't understand the source of the bias. It is school, not party. I encourage you read some economics. The utterly useless Labour lot are not Keynesians—don't you remember how all three parties at the election were up for cuts? How, therefore, a Keynesian-slanted article can be attributed as Labour propaganda is not immediately clear to me. I make the effort to put in talking points from the government as well as the diminishing number of supporters for the economic policies; I don't even bother with the self-serving rubbish that emanates from Mr Balls. Besides, don't you remember who was the leading economics advisor to Brown at the Treasury? Only a fool would vote in Balls as Chancellor. That is not to deny, however, that Osborne is making a complete hash of cleaning up the mess, and causing a lot of misery too. Don't forget: the bast bulk of the cuts are still to come, so expect the recovery to continue to tank. Any Keynesian could successfully predict that. If you don't have the time and inclination to read widely on such matters, I advise Martin Wolf's informative stuff in the Financial Times, and David Blanchflower's stuff, which is similarly informative but also hilarious. By hilarious, I mean utterly scathing. Wolf's pretty funny too. Again, this is not about Labour vs. Tories, and there is nothing to prevent someone being a Keynesian and a Tory. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't call it Labour propaganda, though it certainly read like it to me in a lot of places. And in commenting I was and remain very conscious of the election that took place on Thursday, the fact that it Osborne appeared to be specifically targeted.  It doesn't matter where the bias comes from.  These articles are not allowed to have a Keynesian bias any more than they're allowed to have a Labour bias.  They have to be neutral.  An 100kB article on a government policy that doesn't even mention the government's arguments is not neutral and that's not allowed. Kahastok talk 08:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Western Sahara
In Template:Africa topic, doesn't "Western Sahara" refer to the dependency of Morocco? There's another link, "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic," which refers to the part not under Morocco's control. Goustien (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Western Sahara is the entire territory - essentially all of the old Spanish Sahara - both Polisario- and Moroccan-controlled. Both sides claim all of Western Sahara.  Morocco that the region is an integral part of Morocco (as the Southern Provinces), and Polisario that the region is all the independent SADR. Kahastok talk 22:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Please be polite.
I treat you with respect and I expect politeness and respect in return. I find this quite unacceptable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style%2FDates_and_numbers&diff=498561776&oldid=498520503

Please do better in future. Michael Glass (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You've abused my trust far too many times for you to have any reasonable expectation that I will let you abuse it again. If you don't like that, you should have acted differently when you had the chance.  And if you consider your side of our interactions to be a case of you treating me with respect then it is difficult to see what you wouldn't consider such. Kahastok talk 19:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Kahastok, If you don't trust me, so be it. However, I still expect you to comply with Wikipedia policy. Your communication here was polite, constructive and helpful. I thank you for it and hope that in future you will strive to make comments more like this one. Michael Glass (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * FYI Michael, your tone is quite condescending here so I'd strongly suggest that you stop hounding K on this issue while you relook at yourself from a neutral/uninvolved third person's perspective. Reason being that you've just committed the cardinal sin of "2 wrongs making 1 right". Take it from me, when someone has pointed his ship's bow away from you (in an opposite direction and thus not at you), you might want to do the same to encourage/foster good will from the other party. If you continue to point your ship's bow towards him/her, how can you expect the other party to have confidence in your words. FWIW. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 12:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry my comment came across that way. Because of Kahastok's comment I was able to make an improvement to the article on metrication in the UK. I wanted to acknowledge this. If criticism comes across as attack and praise is seen as condescending, then communication is indeed fraught with difficulty. Michael Glass (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I'm sure that Michael - you've heard of the phrase "silence is golden"? Oftentimes, when you don't say something it actually beats saying something and then having to explain so much. And although clarity is a virtue, simplicity is a beauty that trumps everything else. Again, FWIW. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 00:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Timestamps for sock puppet detection
It looks like the WP:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto SPI has lurched forward, so that removes most of my impetus for trying to do a userland SPI investigation. Given that I didn't provide any raw data your objections are reasonable. The advantage to looking at timestamps, though, is to pick up coarse-grain patterns: does the user edit during their lunch hours? Only after 8p? Continuously throughout the day? (Or, based on looking at my own graph, has the user been suffering from insomnia?) Looking at the plots of the raw data it's really easy to distinguish one user from another, and the KS test allows me to quantify that distinction.

The fact that data can drift from 2300 to 000 hours doesn't matter much given a sufficiently large number of samples: either the user edits around midnight UTC and there will be plenty of data points on either side, or the user doesn't often edit during that time and the p-value is relatively insensitive to a few stray outliers.

Ornaith raised an interesting point that editors currently edit-warring may be checking in and making edits continously. That's something I'll need to control for.

Anyway, I'll ping you if I decide to pursue this further and we can have a proper statistical discussion with graphs at hand.

Best,

Garamond Lethe 21:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds interesting at any rate, though I think it sounds to me like it needs a bit more experience with common patterns of edits, to know how likely given patterns are. Anecdotally, you would think that there might be many editors who happen to edit after school or work who'll all have similar patterns - so I was a bit surprised at how different some of the numbers were on your list on Ornaith's talk.  In principle I'd suggest that day of the week would be useful to add - but you're limited in most SPI cases by lack of data.


 * It might well be worth going through a few SPI cases and see how things stack up, see how well the numbers you generate correlate with results from behavioural and checkuser results.


 * (Of course, there are also some SPIs where technical data doesn't help because the individual is in a different country - and is probably at a different job, doing different things in their days and so on - but checkuser doesn't help in those cases either). Kahastok talk 19:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Brisbane
Finally finished it - see Matthew Brisbane. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)