User talk:Wee Curry Monster/Archive 10

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013
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) 13:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013
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) 09:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Response
Posting as an IP as I have no intention of returning. First of all, I'd like to thank all of those who've written to me expressing their disquiet at this ruling.

Nick-D is most astute in recognising that nationalism was and is at the root of this. Argentine nationalism. You have just had two editors stating at WP:AN that their motivation is to make the articles more Pro-Argentine to counter what they see as a Pro-British bias. From the POV of any nationalist bigot from Argentina any reasonable neutral text is going to be Pro-British. And as Apcbg has observed the text of the article having been established by consensus over a long period does indeed represent a NPOV. Dpmuk, there is no way an article that prominent could ever have been maintained a non-neutral statement, so your argument in that respect is not sustainable.

Dpmuk you stated above that this was not your fault and it was a community decision. In a matter of days a few admins who did not look at the case closely made a decision solely based on what you posted. You loaded the gun, pointed it in the right direction; that someone else pulled the trigger does not absolve you of responsibility. Looking at what you posted there, you were basically saying we were equally bad yet above you acknowledge that Gaba p was at the root of it all; it was decidely one sided. Why didn't you say so, if you could see it?

I hold nothing against you personally but I believe you made a very flawed decision with the best of intentions. Spotting a pattern of bullying and stalking is not easy from a few snapshots and whilst it might have seemed like just bickering to you, after a year of constant hounding it is very different being on the receiving end. Nick-D's comments were right on the money, maybe I'd got caught up in it. But I'd been left to cope with constant abuse and stalking for a year. Any and all avenues I pursued for help came to naught.

So why am I leaving.

I am not leaving because I'm angry at this ruling, though to be honest I do find it a massive slap in the face. Ultimately, I am leaving simply because I have ceased to enjoy editing wikipedia. Honestly, I've lost any and all passion I once had for editing, even if I were to come back I no longer have the motivation to contribute. Its simply gone.

As regards User:Gaba p, I have nothing but pity for an individual so sad, pathetic and full of hate that they would pursue a campaign of harassment for over a year because of some imagined slight. I don't reciprocate as basically life is too short to waste on trivia.

Anyway, someone please wipe this talk page for me please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.105.34.162 (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * WCM, rest assure that I'll keep the page this way until 31st May, after which it would be wiped as you've requested. Best and cheers. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 15:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * A couple of of comments. I am aware that the topic ban was largely my doing and have never tried claiming otherwise.  What I objected to was the statement that it was "unilateral".  Do I think what I did was flawed?  Yes, I do.  I also feel I did not have a choice.  I feel that the way wikipedia deals with content disputes is deeply flawed and feel it is the reason that we lose some editors - as it seems to be the case with you.  In this case consensus building has obviously failed but the community believes so strongly in it that there is no alternative - even mediation which I suggested requires the parties to agree to it.  Yours and Gaba_p's actions were making it difficult for anyone else to become involved in the article and were effectively resulting in a slow motion edit war.  Was a topic ban the right tool, no.  Was it, unfortunately, the best tool available, yes I think it was.  I would add that neither of you helped yourself by simply carrying on before and not trying something different such as mediation despite multiple warnings from me about where things were heading.  If either of you had stopped at that point any ban would have been unlikely to involve you.
 * Similarly if you felt that strongly that you were being bullied you'd probably have been best coming up with a very good case and taking it to ANI (which again is broken but the best available, in no small part because of how often nothing is done due to no-one commenting etc.).
 * "maybe I'd got caught up in it". Yes I think you had and this is no small part of why I proposed a topic ban rather than anything more substantial, to give all editors a chance to calm down.  That said your statement that "From the POV of any nationalist bigot from Argentina any reasonable neutral text is going to be Pro-British." I think shows what caused a large amount of the problem here.  I bet if you switch the two countries around you're pretty much get what Gaba_p thinks.  I think a lot of this was caused by you each failing to realise this was the other person's view and not accounting for that fact (which is different to agreeing with it).
 * As I say, my gut feeling is that Gaba_p is more likely the root cause. However I have no proof of this, and I note you never offered any, so I couldn't act on it.  Admins are only volunteers to and you'll be lucky indeed to find one that would have waded through all the back story on this - making your case succinctly with diffs etc may well have helped my confirm where the bigger problem was but this never happened.  I would, rightly, get pilloried if I acted on a gut feeling.
 * I'm sorry things have ended the way they did. I can understand your decision and will chalk it up to another case of wikipedia being broken as I don't know how I could have acted differently within wikipedia's broken rules.  Similar reasons is why my editing has become less of late. Dpmuk (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Dpmuk, you state that I haven't provided evidence in the form of diffs. See  for example.  I have repeatedly at WP:ANI but as I and others have commented, Gaba p deployed distraction tactics including the use of misleading diffs.  I even demonstrated how he was abusing diffs and it was ignored.  Previously Gaba p was blocked for disruption and incivility, he has been warned enough times to quit or face further blocks - well those never materialised and he just got bolder and bolder.  Whilst I was the focus it seemed no one gave a shit as the disruption was focused.
 * And as regards my comment on nationalism. Look at the record in the history of Talk:Falkland Islands, where I was simultaneously lambasted for being pro-British and pro-Argentine.  I am more than capable of recognising that other people have differing viewpoints but that is very different from the way Gaba p edited.  He sought to remove any reference to a British viewpoint to be replaced by an exclusively Argentine one.  Yes it was a large part of the problem but you've totally misunderstood the role it played; frankly my POV doesn't cross over into my editing and I can work with editors whose views differ.  Look at the history of my work with User:Jor70 and User:DagosNavy, look at who it was who built bridges between British and Argentine editors on Falklands topics.
 * I do not agree that a topic ban on me was warranted, Gaba p has received numerous warnings for his editing behaviour, it was the fact they were never acted upon that led to this situation. You can blame the rules if you like but its more a case of people failing to act within the rules.  Its illuminating to note that when he was blocked peace broke out immediately.  192.35.35.40 (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This is right. We got to this point largely because Gaba insisted on pushing bias on the article and when somebody chose to do something about it, they went for the Wikipedia-standard idea that the disrupted are as responsible for disruption as the disruptive.


 * I find it interesting that Dpmuk says [i]f either of you had stopped at that point any ban would have been unlikely to involve you. It is not clear to me what point this is supposed to be, but I would point out that by the time the topic ban was made, Curry Monster had stopped.  He was observing a two-week-old moratorium agreed between himself and Gaba.  Gaba reneged on the deal within 48 hours, and without Curry Monster to stonewall, was stonewalling everyone else who disagreed with him.  And I believe this was pointed out at the AN discussion.


 * If Curry Monster had been topic banned and Gaba not, we would currently be in exactly the same place as we were beforehand. Consensus would have been just as impossible to attain.  Had Gaba been topic banned and Curry Monster not, we would currently be in the position we are in now, in which peace and cooperative editing have broken out.  Difference with both topic banned is that we lose Curry Monster's extensive knowledge and experience in this area, resulting in worse coverage of the topic overall.


 * It is and always has been clear that any topic ban on Curry Monster damages - is currently actively damaging - Wikipedia's coverage of Falklands topics. There is no preventative reason to exclude Curry Monster from the topic and there is no benefit to the encylopædia from doing so.  This was a very bad decision. Kahastok talk 17:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It is a great pity that you have been banned from discussin the Falklands on the apparent say-so of Argentine nationalists intent on editing EN Wiki to fit their own pre-conceived notions of what 'neutrality' is, whilst ES Wiki is left a ghost-yard of one-sided articles (the ES article on the sinking of the Belgrano doesn't even mention Admiral Molina Pico and Hector Bonzo's statements that the sinking was justified and an act of war, and that this was also the position of the Argentine Navy). FOARP (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013
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) 16:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013
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) 00:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Disruption by Kahastok
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) Martinvl (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikilink request
You posted on AN "I went to WP:ANI" -- could you provide a wikilink to the archive of the discussion? NE Ent 21:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply to your email
I have received your recent email. My involvement in the case was in March and April 2012. My usual practice in such cases is to keep an eye on the editor in question for a short time, to see if the same problems continue, and if not then to leave it and get on with other things. I can't keep track of every editor I have ever had any contact with indefinitely. Consequently, I was completely unaware of what the editor you refer to had been doing lately. When you posted on my talk page about the issue, I looked at the page you linked to, and saw nothing there that related to me, or that I knew about. There was a long and tedious argument there, about things that I had no knowledge of. The section in question related to a topic ban which was imposed more than a year after my last involvement with the editor in question. Nevertheless, I read enough of it, and followed enough of the links from it, to get a general idea of what was involved. I still saw nothing that I had any knowledge of. Other people, some of whom obviously had far more knowledge of the situation than I did, were there, and it seemed far better to leave it to them. Now that I have read your email, I have looked back at the history of my past involvement, which, as I said, took place in March and April of last year. I have looked at the posts I made to the editor's talk page, and at the emails I sent you. I have also checked the editor's recent editing history, and his block log. I see the following:
 * I unblocked the editor from an block for sockpuppetry, as there seemed to be significant doubt. I made it clear that I was by no means certain, but that there was too much doubt for me to feel that the block was justifiable.


 * I told the editor that, if he continued to be aggressive and confrontational towards other editors, it was likely that he would be blocked again.


 * I expressed the intention of keeping an eye on things, and following up problems if they arose. However, I did not mean that to be an undertaking to keep watching him for ever, and I did not "promise" to do anything. During the time when I did keep an eye on him, I saw nothing that would justify further action


 * About nine months after my involvement ended, the editor was blocked briefly for "personal attacks or harassment".


 * I have seen nothing whatever in recent editing that would justify any administrative action. Merely editing in ways that you, or I, or both of us, don't like, is not enough. Nor is the fact that you and he dislike one another, and disagree rather vehemently. However, the editor has made over 2000 edits, the vast majority of them within the last year, and I have looked at only a tiny fraction of them, so it is entirely possible that I have missed some very significant edits. If you know of any edits that would justify blocking, then please give me diffs. I would be perfectly willing to block if I knew of any justification, but I can't possibly block just because you think I should, without actually seeing editing which justifies a block, and with the best will in the world none of the recent edits I have seen come within a million miles of doing so.

I am sorry that this reply will not be welcome to you, but I really do not see that I can do anything else. I have no knowledge of anything in recent times that would justify any action against the editor you refer to. If you know of any, then feel welcome to point me to it, and I will be willing to look into it. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * James, could you please comment at WP:AN and confirm that I did not ask, as he is claiming, that User:Gaba p be blocked.
 * In answer to your question, you'd have to look a little further back, I have barely edited for months as I effectively retired - hence the retired banner as I became despondent at his constant harassment. It wasn't a case of simply disagreeing or disliking someone he simply would not leave me alone.  Wee Curry Monster talk 15:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have done as you ask at AN.
 * While I honestly do understand your sense of frustration, I really cannot take any administrative action about things which happened months ago. If I did so I would expect to be hauled through the usual attack process at ANI. Whether I would have done so if I had known about it at the time, I don't know, and there really is nothing to be gained by going into that now. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments and subsequent follow up. The comments there are tame compared with what I've had to put up with for some time.  Wee Curry Monster talk 15:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)  PS preceding comments are just an observation nothing more, I have noted your comments about a retrospective review.  Wee Curry Monster talk 15:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013
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) 00:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban etc
Please read this all the way through as I suspect the first bit will annoyed you and it would be good to see it in context. Having thought about it some more at the moment I'm not ready to support the lifting of the topic ban. The main reason for this is both the request and most other recent interactions I've seen of yours have been about what other editors have done wrong. Having looked back through the history there are undoubtedly things that you did wrong, or if not wrong, which could have been handled better. Please try not to comment on what you think of other people's action say, for example, "I reacted badly to this comment" but don't say "I reacted badly to this comment because I disagreed with ...". I'm trying to get an idea of what you think of your own conduct not what you think of the issues underlying everything.

Now I suspect you'll think that's concentrating too much on you and not on other people etc but that's what's needed at this stage to get the topic ban lifted. Commenting on other people is unhelpful in that regard. That said I do think there's some merit to some of what you say. Hopefully the interaction ban will be enough to stop that problem. I will try to find time to look into this issue more once we've dealt with the topic ban issue.

I also think your actions at AN and other places isn't helping. Why I understand your frustration at feeling your being misrepresented trying to defend every diff etc comes across as having a battlefield mentality and is hurting your case. In general neutral experienced editors will know to look at the diffs and the bigger etc and it's their opinions that will count the most in any discussion. As a general bit of advice I think you'd do very well to more often just let a statement stand that you disagree with and see if anyone else comes along and disagrees. This makes the case stronger and by not replying yourself you avoid the wall of text problem and so are more likely to get more opinions. If no one else has commented in some time then it may be worth making your disagreement known so it's on record but after that;'s done it's probably best to sit back and see if anyone else comments.

Finally I ask that should Gaba_p or any other similarly involved editor see this conversation they do not comment. I want this to be a discussion with WCM. WCM - I suggest that if anyone like that does comment you simply remove their comment (as is your right on your talk page) rather than comment. Dpmuk (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Fundamentally, I don't think you're being fair. If you ask me are there things I could have handled better, then I would of course say yes I could have handled some things better.  If I was to pick one thing, it would be perhaps to not respond to false allegations of misconduct or to defend myself quite so vigorously.  I had of course begun to recognise this for myself and had tried to stop doing it.  I had for example observed a self-imposed moratorium for nearly two weeks when you proposed this topic ban.
 * I can point you to examples where for example I was accused by certain editors of being a liar, which they supported by using diffs in a misleading manner and they were taken seriously. You can appear to be in the impossible position of being damned if you don't respond and ultimately damned if you do.  I can now see that the editor responsible was trolling but at the time, when it fealt like I was being constantly hounded I was crushed that his false allegations were taken seriously.
 * Tell me straight as this is between you and me, why would it ever be acceptable for an editor to come out at WP:ANI with a false allegation against another editor of lying and it not be a violation of WP:CIVIL? Why would that not be grounds for an immediate block?
 * And whilst I have acknowledged my own faults in some aspects, as you yourself have observed I was not fundamentally the root cause and I have not violated wikipedia norms of civility. On the other hand I have been the focus of a campaign of harassment and bullying and been punished for being a victim.  If you can't recognise why I might feel aggrieved there is something fundamentally wrong here.  Wee Curry Monster talk 20:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've thought about this quite a bit and it's clear that we see things quite differently and my attempts to help are just antagonising. I disagree with enough of your reply that I can't support the lifting of the ban but at the same time I don't see enough to oppose either.  I'm going to bow out of the whole wider topic now and try to let others resolve it.  I've done my best but it's clear that I've reached the end of my ability to help.  I would say that some of Gaba_p's statement at ANI are at best, somewhat misleading.  As a concrete and easy example his list of people you apparently canvassed listed two people you had to contact as you'd mentioned them.  Hopefully some previously uninvolved admin will pick up on this and do something about it.  I myself came very close to blocking him for some of what he's said at ANI but thought it would antagonise the whole situation too much coming from the admin who proposed the topic ban and who you'd quoted as saying Gaba_p was more to blame.  Given that I no longer felt uninvolved enough to act.  I'm sorry I haven't been more help to you as I always want to see editors that have been banned/blocked back editing productively and I hope that with the help of others this can come about. Dpmuk (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I am genuinely sorry that you believe you're antagonising me, as that is simply not the case. I am also sorry that you believe you can't support lifting the topic ban, as I don't believe you've ever had a chance to see my editing under normal circumstances where I'd expect you'd have formed a very different impression.  Ultimately I can see you're in a difficult position as from the outside it is easy to have the perception of two editors simply bickering and lobbying you to act against the other.  I have no desire to spend my time endlessly complaining about Gaba_p as I would much prefer to be working on a series of articles I had in preparation but am unable to progress because of the topic ban.  I have always been of the opinion it is far better to focus on content in discussions rather than to complain about the conduct of other editors.  I would ask you to note that even before the topic ban I was not happy with the way talk page discussions were going, I did reach out to other editors, to you here for example, to ask for advice as to how to handle it better.  Not as an excuse you understand but you didn't respond and neither did anyone else I'd asked.  If my conduct was problematic, I am more than willing to listen to feedback.  I have taken on board the message about not responding for example, equally I ask you to recognise its not easy.
 * If you're not willing to continue this discussion then fine. But as an example picked at random from just before you proposed a topic ban, Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute/Archive 18, could you point to me how I could have responded better?  Wee Curry Monster talk 17:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To add, you ever seen this . Wee Curry Monster talk 17:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't remember the exact circumstances where you state I didn't respond but I definitely read your post and there would have likely been one of two reasons I didn't respond either I thought I couldn't respond in a calm and measured way that would have helped the situation - the whole situation has frustrated me at times - or I thought, in my opinion, it was significantly minor and the best course of action would be to let it blow over. Maybe I should have said something about why I didn't respond but in both cases this would have carried it's own risks of inflaming the situation.
 * As for the example you give I think that response would have been perfectly reasonable in a normal discussion. However given the already heated discussion previous to the summary section any post by you (or indeed gaba_p) was likely to inflame the situation. In that situation you'd probably have been best just letting it run it's course without commenting.  I know this can often be very hard to do - and may not seem fair - but it's often for the best and likely to work out better for you in the long run.  As an example any neutral editors reading the thread are more likely to see you as fanatical than reasonable and so put less weight on your opinion if you continue to reply to every point.  I also disagree that it was a personal attack, it may have seemed like that especially with the ill advised use of words like "misinterpretation" but my reading of it is it's a badly worded attempt at discussion rather than a personal attack.
 * This is essentially why I can't support the lifting of the topic ban - you don't seem to know when it's best to disengage. For example above I specifically asked you not to comment on other editors but you immediately go and comment on personal attacks.  I've seen your accusations etc many times now and that's not what I wanted in this discussion.  Whether you think I'm being fair or not you should have been able to see that the best way to help get what you want (the lifting of the topic ban) was to do as I'd asked and get my support.  I even said I'd be willing to look into your accusation in future but that wasn't what I wanted right now.  I fear that this not knowing when to disengage is likely to lead to other long contentious talk page discussions hence why I can't support lifting on the ban.  However the fact that you seem to be making a genuine effort to come up with a workable half-way solution is why I can't outright oppose either. Dpmuk (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I answered honestly because I am genuinely prepared to take feedback. I don't see the value in preparing an answer that was what you wanted to hear.  I'm not stupid, I could guess what I was supposed to reply to get your support.
 * If you want to know anything that I've learned, well, it is to disengage, that lesson has been loud and clear. It may have taken me a while but I got there.  I can promise faithfully I will not enagage in long contentious discussions.  To emphasise the point, I invite you with my endorsement to impose a cooling off block if in your opinion I do.  I will not appeal any block you personally choose to impose.  Does that seem reasonable?  I only ask for a WP:TROUT first.
 * The question that springs to my mind is at which point does responding in perfectly reasonable manner and consistently responding in a perfectly reasonable manner become problematic? I would really appreciate an answer here as I feel in some ways damned if I do and damnned if I don't.  Wee Curry Monster talk 21:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That's fair enough. Simply saying what someone wants to hear is never a good idea but at the same time staying on the requested topic shouldn't involve lying.  I'm pleased if trying to disengage is what you've you learnt as failure to do so (not just by you but others as well) seems to have been what caused a lot of the problem.  Personally I'd suggest going away for a few weeks and practising what you've learnt on other areas of the encylopedia.  I realise this is probably not what you want to do but if you can show you've managed to disengage when necessary in other areas I think this is more likely to result in the lifting of the ban.
 * If you're actively trying to get better at disengaging then blocks will serve no useful purpose as long as you listen to people when they say you need to disengage. That said I will trout you if I see you really failing to disengage.
 * As for your final question I think there's two things to say. Firstly you should remember that what you consider a perfectly reasonable manner may be completely unreasonable to someone else.  This I think has also been part of the problem both you and others have seemed to be of the opinion that "I'm right and anyone that disagrees with me is obviously mad".  Why thinking the first part is fine the second part is problematic.  Accepting that other people have different views, that their view is probably valid and trying to understand how they've arrived at that view can help a lot.  This is not the same as agreeing with them.
 * As for the second part of my answer I think it comes problematic when the other parties involved start getting, for want of a better word, combative. This could occur almost straight away or only after a lot of discussion.  Where to draw the line is a judgement call although I will say that, IMO, at the moment you've been going way past the line.
 * I'm pleased that you're trying to sort things out but think you need to accept it may take some time and probably be slower than you'd like. This is a highly charged topic with lots of editors holding entrenched views so I think everyone is probably going to want things to move forward slowly and cautiously so things don't get out of hand again.  I'm sure no one wants this to end up at arbcom. Dpmuk (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well there you are, I don't think as far as wikipedia goes we are a million miles apart. The thing is I can see that others have different views, plus I can see where they've come from.  I can respect that someone has a different opinion and I would ask you to note who it was that built bridges to enable the Falkland Islands Working Group to be built in the first place.  I don't need to agree with someone to understand them.
 * As this is a personal discussion, I would hope to get you to understand me a little better and to understand what motivates me and why I advocate wikipedia's policy of a WP:NPOV. You have an email.  Wee Curry Monster talk 22:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * PS I ask the contents of the email remains between us. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a note to say that I've read the e-mail and honestly don't know how best to respond (hence the delay in replying). However it didn't come as too much of a surprise and I'll try to keep it in mind in future dealings with you. Dpmuk (talk) 07:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit being perplexed by the amount of vengeance voting on your topic ban removal request. Perhaps you should have avoided commenting much on others, but even then I doubt that would have made much of a difference. Regardless, the interaction ban is an undeniable necessity. Be strong.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 17:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see the discussion appears not to have turned out well for you. My advise for your next try (and I hope you will try again) - don't mention any of your detractors in your plea for removing the ban. Seriously, it didn't help your case, and simply served to mobilise everyone you mentioned to vote against you en bloc, turning the discussion into a big long thread of he-said, she-said. FOARP (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

PS - I know what it's like to have people just fling any old insults at you simply because they don't agree with your POV but have no real grounds on which to do so. This discussion on Shark Island resulted in me being accused of being a racist, a holocaust denier, etc. simply for pointing out the obvious - that no-one had ever called the place an extermination camp, and that everyone writing on the subject called the place a concentration camp (as if that's so much better). Some times there's nothing you can do about a discussion like this - in this case the page just appears to have been captured by people pushing an a-historical POV and there's no way of changing it. FOARP (talk) 10:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Retired
It might help to remove the retired tag from your user and talk pages seeing as you aren't technically retired at the moment. Semi-retired would be more appropriate right now. Mabuska (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
I see you have just reverted an edit of mine without further explanation. This was a spelling correction from "loose necessary precision" to "lose necessary precision". It appear to me that the original was an obvious spelling error. I suppose one could imagine that the verb "loosen" was intended, but that would be unidiomatic. I would be grateful if you would revert your reversion and explain in your edit summary. --Boson (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Did I? I was unaware of anything of the sort, I tend to avoid WP:MOSNUM due to the needless WP:DRAMA it seems to generate.  I will look presently and fix it.  Wee Curry Monster talk 13:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I see someone fixed it already, I can only presume it was finger trouble with an accidental rollback. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation! --Boson (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Votestacking
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large.

I am formally notifying yhou that I am requesting that the ANI you created here be rejected on grounds of vote stacking by you. My rationale is given here.

Martinvl (talk) 10:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Even after admins disagreed with you Martinvl your still trying to flog this dead horse? Even in the very slim chance you got it thrown out on a technicality (which is highly unlikely due to your subsequent behaviour Martinvl), I will post a proper RFC/U that you can't try to wriggle your way out of and it won't be on the grounds of metric/imperial as WCM's was, but on your personal behaviour to the rest of this community which you have no defense whatsoever for. Mabuska (talk) 11:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013
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) 23:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Topic Ban
How did the appeal go? I did comment at the noticeboard, hope I did the right thing. BedsBookworm (talk) 12:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Killed by a pile on. Thank you for commenting.  Wee Curry Monster talk 21:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks (and I do mean that)
Thanks for requesting the SPI on me (now there's a sentence you don't see on wikipedia very often). It was the right thing to do and really helped move the discussion along. Previous trips to SPI with DeFacto have taken a week or more to complete when there was less backlog than there is now. Looks like this one will be over with sooner rather than later.

Best,

Garamond Lethe t c  18:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbersWikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
Please redact your comment about me poisoning the well. It is entirely uncalled for. --Boson (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I will happily do so, when you remove the comment I responded to. That was also uncalled for and I took it to be an attempt to discredit a point I wished to make. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I'm really not sure what comment you are referring to that could possibly be called poisoning the well. From your preceding sentence, I can only guess that you mean my comment in square brackets ("[The link appears to be dead and therfore redirect to the Times Online home page.]"). If so, please confirm and I will happily remove it. I would have to edit it anyway, to remove the typo. --Boson (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That would be the one, btw, may I ask why you felt the need to comment as an WP:INVOLVED editor. I have seen too many RFC derailed by editors continuing with a stale argument and deterring outside comment.  Wee Curry Monster talk 22:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You may indeed. I did see your polite request for involved editors not to participate in the discussion, and for that reason I have so far refrained from taking part in the threaded discussion and the survey. However, I did (and do) not think this applied or should apply to the "definition" section of the RfC, which was formulated by one involved editor and already contained contributions by another involved editor. In particular, a responder had asked about the differences between the drafts. I too find it a pain to be presented with several drafts and, basically, be asked to choose between them without any indication of what the differences are. This is especially problematic when the drafts contain unrelated differences. As I wrote, I had already begun the non-trivial task of working out what the substantive differences were, so I thought it would be helpful to spare others some of the effort. I also think it is not a bad idea for the differences to be described by someone who is aware of the issues but is not one of the authors of the "competing" drafts. In this context of a request to explain the differences, it seemed appropriate, even necessary, to point to a major difference between your draft and a later one, but I wanted to do so in a way that did not appear to recommend one of the drafts.--Boson (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I suppose I might as well ask. Since the RfC hasn't really had any take-up, what do you plan to do now? To back off, as you said earlier? I suppose that really is what we ought do. It really is a bonkers bit of discussion, that. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I take the lack of take up on the RFC as a general indicator there is no appetire to change the policy. TBH I'm not really surprised, the main dynamic for change has always been the constant campaigning on the metic issue by Martin and Michael, I've never seen any real desire for change.  I agree it is bonkers and always has been.  Wee Curry Monster talk 20:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * To add, probably best to ask an admin to close. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks Wee. I appreciate the strong stand you made in my favor at AN. I have to admit my original error, nonetheless; none of this would have even taken place if I had followed your recommendation from the start. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 21:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Falkland Islands award
I know you are not one to like userboxes and awards, but I am sharing this with the top ten contributors of the Falkland Islands article. Congratulations.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 03:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Heading on AN
Just a heads-up ... titling it "Block review" is a bad idea, as that focuses on the "mechanics of the block". Calling it a "Community review of unblock request" is what it was supposed to be. Of course, considering that Marshal is taken the dumb step of arguing the block was invalid in his unblock request as opposed to focusing on the WP:GAB-compliant aspects, it may be a moot point. Arguing its invalidity really screws up his whole "I understand, accept, and want to move on" aspect of WP:GAB. ES &#38;L  12:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah OK thanks. Doh!  I know better than that.  Wee Curry Monster talk 15:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013
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) 06:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Motion: Argentine History (MarshalN20)
You have made a statement in the clarification request relating to Argentine History. This message is to let you know that a motion amending the original decision has now been proposed. You are welcome to add comments on this motion underneath your original statement. Thanks, AGK  [•] 11:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Kafziel arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 29, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013
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) 00:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Already refactored
Done. Thanks for being polite.Rod (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014
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) 13:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Kafziel ArbCom case
Just thought this might interest you: User:Hasteur/Essays/Arbitration,_the_worst_hive_of_scum_and_villany.. I mentioned it ArbCom's proposed decision discussion for their perusal as well. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Surpringly, the much anticipated posting hasn't arrived...12 January has come and gone.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * On a secondary note, it seems Edinburgh will miss your display of ballet.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 05:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks like we might be disappointed in ArbCom's decision...attack the symptom, ignoring the disease. AfC delenda est.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster/ColonelHenry/Hasteur
I've just been reading the talkpage of the ArbCom Kafziel case and noted that you three sometimes make unnecessary personal remarks. Editors are encouraged to comment on the case, and to make factual statements, however, comments which are worded as insults such as "Yawn. No wonder Kafziel gave up dealing with you.", "screaming howler monkeys throwing excrement", "their vengeful, spiteful and downright vindictive behaviour", are not helpful, and can make matters worse. Whatever disagreements we have about process, we can raise our concerns without resorting to insults. We are all volunteers on this project, and we all share a common aim. Let us attempt to resolve disagreements in a civil and respectful manner.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  10:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Attempted mediation on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Proposed decision
Greetings, friend. Would you consider refactoring your comments to Hasteur at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Proposed decision? I think it would be best if Hasteur and Kafziel focus on the main locus of their dispute, which is each other.

I obviously do not WP:OWN arbitration case talk pages, and know that you have every right to comment wherever you please. But I think that If you could move your comments somewhere else on the page, or maybe remove or strike them altogether for the time being, it might be helpful to the process. I hope you agree that the best outcome is for Hasteur and Kafziel to just work it out.

Best, Hi DrNick ! 14:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I very much agree, I have withdrawn my comments altogether. I don't think expressing irritation at Hasteur helped and on reflection I really don't want to do anything that detracts from your efforts.  I wish you every success.  Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 15:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We'll see how it shakes out. Thanks,  Hi DrNick ! 15:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also appreciated your efforts very much, HiDrNick. Wish I could have done half as well.  Much thanks for improving wikipedia, and even though the arbcom outcome may not change a whit, methinks you quite possibly kept the t-ban off the table... and far more importantly, helped to avert the long-term risk of grudge-o-pedia.  I am extremely impressed.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

By doing this you place the withdrawn comments at the end of the page so they appear as part of the discussion of the suggestion I made. This is not appropriate, it disrupts that thread. Please return it to the section from which it came. EdChem (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies but I decline to do so. I did it that way purposely to remove the comments from the mediation discussion and place them at the bottom of the talk page.  I don't believe they disrupt the later section at all.  Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 16:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @User:EdChem was this edit summary needed? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey WCM, as you may realize by now, the semi-prot keeps me from contributing on the arb-talkpage itself, but I replied to you over on my own. No urgency about that wall-of-text, though. :-)    Plus it's a bit out of date, now.  I did want to reply here, to something you later said to EdChem, however... "If they could not articulate a reason at the outset in FoF to justify desyopping, then they should not have proposed it as a remedy."  The end result is that the arbs *are* gonna desysop kafziel, without being able to point at any single policy he violated, or any single guideline.  Still, I'm not sure that's, well, violently wrong.  Seems wrong to me... but borderline-wrong, if you get what I mean.  Rationale:

wp:battlefield did not stick, wp:adminabuse was not what occurred, wp:adminacct was not violated on user_talk:kafziel, nor at AN/I, nor when he made a brief statement to the arbs then disengaged, nor even when he emailed the fuck to the arbs. The use of multiple accounts was borderline, but probably not enough to support a verdict. And yet, they didn't want to desysop kafziel for "lack of substantial response to arbs" ... especially in abstentia. *Especially*-especially by themselves revealing his other username. Look at the comments: "whole set of circumstances" (NativeForeigner), "responses, both on and off wiki" (Beeblebrox), "actions from when he decided to use the tools... resigned... alternate account... email" (silktork). Methinks that some of the others, that just marked their names without giving details, may also have similar thinking.

Anyhoo, my point here is, don't be too harsh on the arbs. It isn't the case that they are desysop'g Kafziel because of the email alone, or for other interpersonal reasons. They aren't pushing for desysop on any individual reason: it is all the reasons, combined, as a holistic sum. Which means &mdash; ironically &mdash; that the arbs are stripping the bit, based on WP:IAR as their justification for the verdict. :-)   They cannot agree exactly *why* the bit ought be stripped, well enough to formulate an axiomatic FoF, but they almost all (even Salvio who cites WP:NICE as a plausible reason for desysop) believe at least *one* of the reasons was the straw that broke the camel's back.  The email pushed one or two over the brink.  The retired-yet-not-retired pushed two or three over the brink.  Others are more vague about what the particular straw was... but the majority had a straw.  The straw is not the point though:  the fact that a large number of arbs had *many* aspects which made them unhappy, is why WP:IAR desysop comes into play.

Therefore, was very helpful to the arbs, because he could actually formulate a holistic sum-total WP:IAR justification write-up... whereas the arbs are mostly trained/constrained not to think like that, even though they clearly have been *acting* like that in their verdict. :-)   I seriously doubt the arbs will *say* they are voting based on WP:IAR, since they have "already voted" on WP:ADMINACCT as the nominal reason... but their verdict and Ed's FoF aren't window-dressing, to my mind.  I'm somewhat unhappy with the verdict, cause I don't predict it will necessarily be applied evenly to future cases (and I know for a fact it wasn't applied in this way to past cases!), but window-dressing and WP:IDLI ain't the case here, in my book.  More worrisome to me is P7, the tack-on principle that WP:NOTBUREACRACY (aka pillar one!) is no longer true.  Hope this helps, and thanks as always for improving wikipedia.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

AfC and MfD
Are you still interested in bringing up AfC at MfD or another forum?--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, probably the village pump in the first place. Still not happy about the arbcom outcome, it is another thing I am minded to raise due to the capricious way it turned out. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a million, mate!
I owe you one, man!. I don't use to discuss with admins (you know, here in Argentina we distrust certain forms of authority), that was the cause why I became a total dick instead of requiring help. Thank you for rescuing me from such a miserable situation. I think a possible solution to avoid edit warriors or sockpuppets constantly poping-out from IP addresses is to make logging in mandatory. And, of course, you can always count on me when you need help. Cheers!--Darius (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Talk page stalking and just thought I would chime in: whilst it would be great if everyone needed to have an account to contribute, it wouldn't make any difference as editors would just create sockpuppet accounts and Wikipedia will end up swallowed in a mass of SPI's. Mabuska (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Just popping by to say hi...
Nice to see you back mate :) --Gibmetal 77 talk 2 me 00:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Esteban Mestivier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Dixon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Jewe/itt
Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John.St#Jewitt.27s_Report — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.St (talk • contribs) 18:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Esteban Mestivier
The DYK project (nominate) 15:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Question for you
At Talk:David Jewett you said I was overwriting my citations. I used the Google Books citation tool to format them. As its automatic how am I overwriting them? BedsBookworm (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014
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) 23:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for helping in the discussion at Talk:Falkland Islands. It helps that you keep the ball rolling (instead of it staying stuck on the neighbor's yard, and everyone argues about whose fault it was...blah blah, you know the story). Once all the issues are sorted out, it would be great if we can nominate the article for FA status (that is, unless you want to avoid the headache of the FA process). Best wishes.-- MarshalN20 T al k 21:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate I do appreciate that, its beeen a project of mine to get the article to FA status for about 5 years. I would also like to ask you to help me with an article on Jose Maria Pinedo, though I would have to ask for an exception to your topic ban.  I really do think you could add to it, so am willing to stick my neck out and ask for it, if you're interested. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It sounds like an interesting project. I can certainly look forward to that. I'm sure the arbitrators would to let me work on it if this Falkland Islands article does reach FA status. Thanks WCM.-- MarshalN20 T al k 23:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hope it helps . Regards.-- MarshalN20 T al k 03:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Translation
Hi J, well done! It may be that If we meet in person sometime in the future, pronounciation (from both sides) could be a barrier to our mutual understanding ;), but your translation is very good. I will only ad some clarifications regarding ranks, type of ships and other minor details. Congrats friend!--Darius (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Sargento Mayor
Well friend, my personal knowledge of military ranks in the 19th century is quite limited; I have found, however, a very interesting article about this issue, specifically regarding ranks inside the United Provinces army.(here) The author -appropiately Major :) Sergio Toyos- confirms your assumptions on sargento mayor as being equivalent to a Brevet Major in the Spanish Imperial Army (p. 2).

In the United Provinces, the rank of sargento mayor was initially a cargo (brevet), not a grado (the effective command of troops), but after his victory at the battle of Salta in 1813 General Belgrano was forced to create the rank in order to fill the gap left by the massive promotion of Captains to Lieutenant Colonel (Toyos, p. 3). The sargento mayor was in charge of matters such as discipline, supplies and internal policing inside the batallion or regiment. The rank was eventually replaced by mayor in 1882.

Unfortunately, the only reliable reference to Mestivier as "sargento mayor" is a 2002 online paper from the University of Belgrano (in Spanish). (see page 22) My opinion, based on Toyos, is that the rank of sargento mayor at the time of Mestivier was, for all practical purposes, equivalent to that of "Major" in the British Army.--Darius (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=597587032 your edit] to Heroína (ship) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ]. Source: Museo Naval de la Nación, Tigre, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Sarandi's guns
Hi mate, sorry for the delayed response, but I was "on leave" yesterday (to the countryside with the children in the morning, to the theatre in the evening:). There seem to be some inconsistencies among the sources I found on the Sarandi's guns issue.

This Argentine webpage about the gunnade (a type of carronade with a lower centre of gravity) shows a table with the main artillery carried on the warships of the United Province's navy during the Cisplatine War. The data are based upon a report from Admiral Brown to the Minister of the Navy on 22 July 1826, taken from a well-documented secondary source. According to this, Sarandi`s armament in 1826 consisted of 9 (nine) guns; 2 four-pounder carronades, 2 six-pounder carronades, another 16-pounder gun and 4 four-pounder gunnades, a fairly more powerful armament than that put on display during the 1833 Falklands incident.

An English-language source, Brian Vale's A War betwixt Englishmen, asserts that Sarandi was built (in Baltimore, USA) as the schooner "Gracie-Ann" (p. 24). At the time of her purchase, she carried on just 4 four-pounders and one 16-pounder gun in the bow ("swivel-gun" or pedrero in Spanish). It's possible that Brown added a good number of pieces, thus sacrificing speed for firepower to face the Brazilian fleet, but once the war was over, Sarandi returned to her original configuration or something similar.

I am for including Destéfani's Historia Marítima Argentina as the only source regarding the schooner's armament; he's the only author who clearly mentions Sarandi´s gunnery in 1833. Destéfani claims that the ship had just 7 guns, 6 eight-pounders and the 16-pounder swivel-gun (a 40-pound broadside). Destefani claims that the ship had 8 eight-pounder guns (a 40-pound broadside), without any mention of the swivel-gun. No matter if he recalls Pinedo's account, I think Destéfani is a reliable secondary source.

In any case, had Sarandi kept her 1826 firepower, she would have been outgunned by HMS Clio anyway.--Darius (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Ways to improve Jim Nyamu
Hi, I'm Carriearchdale. Wee Curry Monster, thanks for creating Jim Nyamu!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This is a well written and quite informative article. Please consider adding some categories to the article. Thanks.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Carriearchdale (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Sarandi's guns II
Hi J., I have to correct myself, and as we use to say in Argentina me vas a querer matar :).

Destefani's actually didn't mention the 16-pounder pedrero at all, I was misled into thinking that the gun-in-bow was alive and well by the weight of the full salvo he reckons for the Sarandi (64 pounds full salvo, not a broadside as I wrote yesterday) plus Pinedo's account who includes the swirled-gun. A few lines above, Destefani clearly establishes that La Sarandi tenía 8 cañones de "a 8" y 56 hombres; this is corroborated by at least two other authors, such as Ricardo de Titto's Los hechos que cambiaron la historia argentina en el siglo XIX and Enrique Pinedo's (a relative?) Malvinas, su extraño destino, who only mention the eight 8-pounder guns. Therefore, the bulk of sources ignores the existence of the pedrero. I will correct the number's in the article's blueprint and ad this two new authors. My apologies for misleading you, but Google's snippet view is not the best way to read a source, my mistake. Best Regards.--Darius (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, the figure of 8 corresponds perfectly with the documentation about the trial. The trial source does however confirm the  pedrero and it ties in with the model in the Maritime History Musuem.  Wee Curry Monster talk 20:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Antonina Roxa
Hello! Your submission of Antonina Roxa at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath Template:Did you know nominations/Antonina Roxa and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Hmlarson (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Antonina Roxa
The DYK project (nominate) 00:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI
You might not be aware that Martinvl, who was recently blocked on Simple English Wikipedia for edit warring and disruption of measurement articles there, has referenced you amongst his excuses in an appeal on his talkpage there. --Boffinny (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited José María Pinedo, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Entre Rios, River Plate and Paraná (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination of José María Pinedo
Hi, the maximum allowed length of a DYK hook is 200 characters, but the one you supplied is 227, excluding "(pictured)" which doesn't count. The hook will have to be edited or replaced with a shorter one. M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  00:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014
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) 12:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Falkland Islands copyedit
I'm copyediting this article because it's at the top of the GOCE requests queue. Since your topic ban has been lifted, would you like to take over the copyedit?  Mini  apolis  22:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi WCM. There may be some validity to the Spanish name study in the sense that it gives a good idea to the readers as to why using Spanish names (especially those used Argentina) are frowned upon in the English-speaking world when concerning the dispute (and how there is added political intent when someone in English uses terms such as "Malvinas Islands" to refer to the archipelago).
 * Regards.-- MarshalN20 T al k 22:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry mate but to be honest they aren't frowned upon, the English language is aware of the Spanish or should I say French name. Some in the English language use the Spanish name for anto-British reasons but they're in the minority.  You produced a source that got through GA but tbh it won't pass FA scrutiny. WCM email 23:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good. I trust your decision on the matter.-- MarshalN20 T al k 23:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

SS Atlantic Conveyor
Have a look at WP:SUBCAT. Category:Tyne-built ships is a subcategory of Category:Ships built in England, which is itself a subcategory of Category:Ships built in the United Kingdom. Thanks--Mhockey (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Confused, this justified removing it because? FYI my dad was one of those building her and whilst a proud Scotsman wouldnae want to see her birthplace confused. Cheers. WCM email 20:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Bad reverts
Why did you do this and this? The article Politics of the Falkland Islands really needs more references, essentially the first part of the article, and regarding Governor of the Falkland Islands, I really do not understand why you reverted me when you should know that interwikis now are provided by Wikidata. I will restore my edits because the reasons I mentioned here. Greets. --Zerabat (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I honestly have no recollection of doing that last night, weird. I fixed one you missed. WCM email 05:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014
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) 14:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the message. Certainly not good news. In any case, the puppeteer is better than the arrogant diva and troupe.-- MarshalN20 T al k 16:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And I didn't mean ColonelHenry, even if coincidental ([:)]). I'm surprised this is how things turned out for him. His sense of humor (I assume it was humor) made me laugh, but he had somewhat of a difficult persona. Sad end (even if only temporary).-- MarshalN20 T al k 01:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I rather expect that the extent of the CH hoaxes is limited and stem from a previous account; the socking was really disappointing though. Anyway, I can guess who you mean and I rather doubt he'll be gone for long.   I notice, however, the wailing and lamentation of his followers seems somewhat muted this time, which is encouraging but I don't think my dancing debut is any closer somehow. WCM email 05:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)