User talk:Wee Curry Monster/Archive 12

The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015
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) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015
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) 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI Notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Offensive edit summaries. Thank you. --Stabila711 (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wee CM
I rvd your change to the New Zealand page. Not a biggie, but the word "about" is already used throughout the article, and I returned it to be consistent. Cheers. Moriori (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it reads better the way it was, just my 2c but I'm not going to revert again. Cheers WCM email 12:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit
In this edit you created an article written by a PR firm. I however do not see any mention that this was not your own content in your edit summary. Can you clarify? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Assume you just created it from AfC  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it was from AFC, I first checked the content for accuracy. WCM email 17:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jim Nyamu


A tag has been placed on Jim Nyamu, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.
 * It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.  DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIV, September 2015
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) 05:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXV, October 2015
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) 21:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Congrats!
Hi WCM. I read your article in MercoPress. I had no idea there was such a thing as "Operation Quito." At UT Austin there are currently some studies being done in cartography and history. It's an important area that, unfortunately, has been ignored by scholars. A similar map-manipulation situation occurs with the Peru-Ecuador border dispute. Best.-- MarshalN20 T al k 20:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ARA Libertad (Q-2)
Note that you are at three reverts today and the next revert will get you blocked. You are an established user ahd should know the policies. Pls stop reverting and engage to the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Please try to de-escalate the conflict
User:Ymblanter complains about this edit. I don't think this is an actionable PA, but it's definitely off-topic on the talk page, and unlikely to advance the conflict to a satisfactory conclusion. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sometimes its difficult when faced with a barrage of false accusations to not bite back. Thank you for the reality check.  WCM email 13:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. One more thing: If you confront people with an absolute interpretation of what they said, you put them very much on the defensive. Often, there is more than one interpretation to any sentence, and sometimes a writer may not express his sentiment in the best possible way. So I usually try to give the author more leeway. Instead of "you said" I write: "As I understand it, you said..." - which gives the other party a chance to correct my understanding, and even to soften their position, instead of entrenching on the "no, I didn't" position. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVII, December 2015
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) 05:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

January 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=697873821 your edit] to Uruguay may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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) 14:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ], led by Juan Antonio Lavalleja, declared independence on 25 August 1825 supported by the [United Provinces of the River Plate] (present-day Argentina). This led to

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Same People, Same Things
It shouldn't be surprising, WCM. It's always the same people, doing the same things.-- MarshalN20 T al k 15:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No I'm surprised, not in the least. Its about time someone looked at the server load generated by this sort of thing. WCM email 17:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: River de la Plata
I understand your position, but even if I missed the mark on how long the article had been at Rio de la Plata (2011-2015) by your evidence, it had been stable at that title for some time and the move in 9/15 was definitely under represented. I do not have an opinion here as to which is the best title, there's evidence for both and we all understand the complexity of sorting out common names in cases like this. If you read my close carefully, I see no objection to another RM in the reasonable future. But I would allow the dust to settle a while. When the time comes, initiate another RM and widely advertise it in the appropriate projects and let consensus form as it will for one or the other. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I continue to understand your sentiment here, but as with all titles, the question is not the language of WP but commonness in English language sources. If the Spanish version of a name is more common than the English variant in English Language RS, then the Spanish version is the appropriate title. This is the essence of WP:COMMMONNAME.  It was obvious from the discussion that there was no consensus on the relative commonness of both titles.  I would hope that any future RM resolves that lack of consensus.  I make no judgement either way, but I did do a quick JSTOR search using both "United Provinces of the River Plate" and "United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata" and returned 31 hits going back to 1847 for River Plate and 81 hits going back to 1822 for Rio de la Plata.  This is by no means conclusive of anything, but does demonstrate the complexity of determining Common Name for these kinds of historic, multi-lingual topics.  Such complexity is only aggravated by the tendency of editors whose primary language isn't English to show some bias (as do English language editors) in their positions during such discussions.  Things eventually sort themselves out. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Link to Falklands war
I don't know how to add the link through my iPhone. I dont think I can. I did ask if someone could put the Margaret Thatcher Foundation link in there for me. Or if you could direct me to the instruction page to be able to do it through the phone. Thanks. Solri89 (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're asking of me. In any case I don't use Apple products.  WCM email 15:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Dude, what is up with you seriously? I've complied with finding an unquestionably good reliable source. How could anyone believe Margaret Thatchers Foundation website to be uncredible? And this is besides the fact that I had the clearance and read the classified reports and watched the classified videos that were available to me at the Intel library at Goodfellow AFB in Texas. Why did I do this 8 years after the fact? Because I could then and couldn't before. I knew of the rumors of the satellite Intel and wanted to see for myself if they were true and if the Monroe Doctrine was ignored. It is all true. Unfortunately most of the "good stuff" is apparently still classified. I'd love to disclose my assessment of why I believe it's still classified but I won't violate my oath, even though I'd love to tell the world. From what I can infer about you, I take it you're British or from a Commonwealth Nation? I also can infer that you may be a vet or closely related to those events and don't want to admit the U.K. got U.S. assistance. But the facts are there my friend, it cannot be denied anymore. Regardless of whether the sat Intel was valuable or not is not the point. The point is that the U.S. did provide that Intel. In my opinion the U.S. should have never got involved at all in any way or with any assistance to either side because of the Monroe Doctrine and that they were both allies. Technically because of the Doctrine we should have provided military assistance to Argentina. Since reality says that would have never happen because the U.K. is our strongest ally and because a war like that would be ugly and destabilize -well, everything. So, I state again my friend, it's time for the U.S. to fess up. The sat. Intel information needs to be put in the article. I tried to put it in there in the most inconspicuous way as a compromise to you. Although I did fear you would be the one to revert it and I was right, you did. It's time to put it in my friend. Solri89 (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually they are public but you'd have to go to the source. Which is the place where one is investigated for the clearance. As I am allowed to tell potential employers that I had a TS. I didn't go to Arizona (Thank God). Monterey Ca was the bigger language school at that time ('89). But I LOVED Monterey! Lots and lots of girls in intelligence! Most away from home for the first time! You brought up some memories my friend! The Presidio of Monterey has a huge eagle statue at the base of the old Spanish fort near the bay. The myth is that the eagle will come to life and fly away the moment a virgin graduates. It's still there! Thanks for asking. Solri89 (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. Don't mean where they investigate you. That's the FBI. I mean where the records are stored which I believe is in St. Louis. Solri89 (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I take it by "Tom" you mean you're British. English? Scottish? Welsh? Irish? Cornish? Dominion Realmer? Commonwealth Nationer? Just curious. If you don't wanna answer that's cool. But I believe I did mention I love history and British history is U.S. history. At least up to 19 April 1775. So I do know British history fairly well. It's not taught in schools here and I believe it should be. U.S. history can't be fully understood otherwise. Solri89 (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm Scottish, Tom is short for Tommy Atkins, ie an ordinary infantry soldier. WCM email 20:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Really? I never knew that. I'm gonna look this up and study it myself. Thanks bud Solri89 (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm also glad you're not English. As an American who knows history. (Just for your edification. I'm a first generation Mexican-American.) I've historically despise the English. Nowadays there ok, but historically, don't like them. As a Scot I'm sure you understand. I would say knock the crown off that English monarchs head except for the fact that you Scots have already done so. I don't know how much of your own history you know but that crown is NOT an English crown anymore, you Scots took it from them with King James the VI (notice I did not say "the I). Take great pride in being a Scotsman my friend!  Also, if I were you, I'd start calling England Southern Scotland! Solri89 (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

On the other side, I am also Catholic. So shame on you for what you guys did to King James the VII! 😫 Solri89 (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Jacobites forever!!! Lol 😋 Solri89 (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I would strongly suggest you don't mention sectarianism to someone from Glasgow, even in jest. Particularly with someone who had a Catholic mother and Protestant father.  It tends to go down like a lead balloon. I am well aware that it was James VI who imposed union on the English.  I wouldn't call England anything other than England as we don't want them getting ideas above their station do we? WCM email 15:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Well said and understood. Solri89 (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Revert

 * You beat me to it by about a nanosecond. What bull. Simon Irondome (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * No worries mate. WCM email 17:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016
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) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands
I see you reverted a change someone made on this page about the number of personnel on the islands, but in doing so you did not address the actual error he was trying to address. Might you shed some light on it? 87.254.89.18 (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Read it again. There is no error 68 RM & 11 RN = 79, 22 RM left for South Georgia leaving 57. WCM email 09:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Bizarre

 * I was wandering through my W/L as you do when all of a sudden my partner's new laptop decided to rollback one of your edits! And I was not even looking at the edit in question! This new acer appears to have some features I am not yet familiar with. Like doing it's own WP editing. Jeez. Sorry for any confusion. Hope all's ok with you mate. Simon Irondome (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nae worries big man, I've done the same myself. WCM email 20:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016
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) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is..
...You dont get it both ways. Either its reliably sourced and you accept that the *current* level of information provided is accurate (and as Wikipedia reflects the sources, has to be adjusted accordingly), or its unreliable and any information sourced to it can be removed. You cant have 'Well its unreliable so I am using this unsourced information instead'. If you can find a reliable source that covers the relevant info. Feel free to reinsert it. But given the information provided on the talk page it may not be possible. As a factual matter the Catholic Church does not have to follow secular territorial borders - it can (and does in less populated areas) cross national boundaries in its administration. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You seem to be missing the point, it is sourced from the WP:PRIMARY source, when you appreciate that in 1952 South Georgia was part of the Falkland Island Dependencies. The Apostolic Prefecture of the Falkland Islands was created to separate BOT from the South American diocese when Argentine sovereignty claims began to interfere in church matters.  The matter I brought up at WP:RSN is the separate issue that a WP:SECONDARY source that can be influenced to change, simply to change content on wikipedia can never be considered reliable.  That's the problem.  Your decision to edit war is also an issue.  WCM email 09:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 14:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016
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) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016
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) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016
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) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Stuff

 * Chin up big man. Si. Irondome (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate. Slàinte mhath! WCM email 21:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Llanito
Actually W do what you like. Im travelling and wont be on wikipedia for a while so no point starting an edit war with you now. But give some thought to what I wrote last on the Gibraltar RfC. Also note my prior edit on the Llanito Talk Page (under heading Gallina or Pollo) and how I was actually trying to improve knowledge of Llanito in good faith without any political implications before you even came across the article. You have assumed a Spanish agenda where there was none and started a conflict with someone who was genuinely interested in Llanito (one of the very few people on wikipedia). That is where "Brexit" type attitudes take us. Lose-Lose scenarios. Asilah1981 (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

History of Gibraltar
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.)

I noticed that your last edit wasn't that bad. The only reason we include "Nasrid Kingdom of Granada" is not (as you suspect) to reinforce the notion that Gibraltar is part of Spain, but because Granada was not yet part of SPAIN. I am convinced you edit war with me out of total paranoia as of my intentions. It is not all about this stupid territorial dispute!!!!!!Asilah1981 (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Why didn't you just tell me the issue was "seeking refuge"???!?!? Im fine with removing that.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Your attitude
When I write on your talk page it is typically an attempt to come to an understanding and break the deadlock. It is an act of bad faith to continue to bad mouth me on the article's talk page and selectively quoting what I say to you privately (editing out anything positive) - construing it as a personal attack. I continue to try to engage with you rationally and I honestly do not know if this is all a silly game for you in which you have to win at any cost. You don't even seem interested in the history or the sources and I find the way you have shifted your position strategically, focusing on how you appear in front of other editors, rather than engage with me candidly quite upsetting.Asilah1981 (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Voice of reason
Thank you for being a voice of reason. There's people in this world that I will never fully understand. I hope this little issue didn't mess up your day. Best wishes.-- MarshalN20 T al k 22:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

On our discussions
WCM I am a firm believer in reconciliation on Wikipedia and I have made my peace with editors on more heated discussions that this. Let me tell you my beef with you. I honestly think you have been torturing me on purpose here trying to get me to back off and there was some level of bad faith on both of your sides. I accept that I was really aggressive and was out of line making personal attacks. Can we both try to assume good faith from now on and work together on wikipedia articles we coincide on? I will also do my best to change my attitude. At least something good should come out of such a drawn out interaction.Asilah1981 (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016
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) 13:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Newbie-biting
Template:Newbie-biting has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016
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) 14:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016
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) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

War of the Pacific arbitration case opened
You were recently listed as a party to or 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/War of the Pacific. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/War of the Pacific/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 17, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/War of the Pacific/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Pretender
Good Morning! Can you please prove it's POV, at which point I will shut up? Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's just that (1) our article says it's not (not an RS I know!) (2) the 2015 contribution was from someone who has a very short editing history and doesn't leave summaries; (3) I've never thought of it as PoV, only factual and (4) I find "contender" problematic ... might "claimant" work better?? Thanks DBaK (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well first of all thanks for the message on my talk page, I'd have preferred to discuss this on the article talk page and wonder why you chose to revert before discussing it per WP:BRD. Pretender is a POV laden term, POV in that one side labelled the other as "pretender" disputing their legitimacy.  We shouldn't be using POV terms, when neutral alternatives such as claimant or contender are equally valid and don't bring POV issues with them.  So no I don't have a problem with "claimant". WCM email 08:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't want to answer your questions or work with you on this "long standing undisputed consensus", so please let's forget it. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)