User talk:Wee Curry Monster/Archive 8

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Pfainuk for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

AE Courtesy Note
This is a courtesy note to let you know that you have been mentioned by name at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement and a proposed user conduct solution has been posted. You are named in proposed sanctions. If you have any response or objection, please note it at the request. Vassyana (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
 * Wee Curry Monster is banned from all discussions about or concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar for 7 days.
 * Wee Curry Monster is banned from editing mainspace articles about or concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar for 30 days.
 * Wee Curry Monster is warned that further disruption will result in escalating sanctions and advised to pursue dispute resolution to resolve any disagreements.

Ahoy
I'll keep responses to th other thing on my page. Are you ok old man? You seem a little off. F--- the daft WP politics and what not, I hope all is well. Oh, and if you fancy writing a paper for me on Britain's preperation for economic warfare pre-1914, that would be grand. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 10:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, just take care, ok chap? And you never know. Mood stabilising drugs take the extremes out, but they can take too much, calm the sea too much. Pragmatism is balls (A lesson hard learned by a Lib Dem ;) ) -- Narson ~  Talk  • 10:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment about AE thread
You do not seem to fully grasp the problem with your 'recent' conduct. I am taking history into account, but my actions were based on more recent activity. Let me briefly address the other editors:

A review of Richard's 'recent' edits indicate a return to civility and focus on content. I thought some of his comments leading up to the recent period were particular problematic and a large part of the degradation of the talk page environment, so I included a named sanction for him. Given the lack of immediate, recent problems, I limited the matter to a warning.

A review of Imalbornoz's 'recent' edits were generally focused on content. There were some previous outbreaks, but nothing recent to address. An editor to keep an eye on perhaps, but no current matters to handles.

Addressing your conduct, you made a very bold edit. That in itself is not a problem. However, you continued to revert during discussion and insisted on pushing your after it was clear there was no consensus for that significant change. Your edits and talk page comments were the focus of the mess that happened a month ago. That is not acceptable and part of what landed you in trouble during the ArbCom case.

Also reflecting your prior troubles, your comments continued to be a problem after everyone else cooled their tone down and focused on the content. Protestations of innocence to the contrary, you have repeatedly expressed bad faith accusations: This is recent conduct and continuing over days. It is clearly uncivil and disruptive. I reject that baiting makes the behavior excusable in any way, especially after all other editors were again mostly focused on discussing content. If you have a problem with someone's conduct, leave a polite note for them asking them to tone it down, come to the table, etc. Pursue one of the venues for addressing user conduct. If you don't know where to turn, ask me. I will be glad to offer you a couple of possibilities. Vassyana (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Accusation of deliberate POV editing and obstruction
 * Similar accusations, plus tag teaming notions
 * A big bag of bad faith accusations

Please note that I have revised my suggested remedy, based on Richard's suggestion that you be permitted to remain involved. Vassyana (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement Result
This is logged at the ArbCom case page. If you have any further questions or comments, please leave them on my talk page. Vassyana (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wee Curry Monster is subject to a standard 0RR restriction for all articles about or concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar for 30 days. As with normal revert restrictions, good faith edits reverting vandals and known sockpuppets are not subject to this restriction.
 * Wee Curry Monster is warned against bad faith accusations, that further disruption will result in escalating sanctions and advised to pursue dispute resolution to resolve any disagreements.
 * Richard Keatinge is warned to refrain from incivility and encouraged to utilize appropriate venues for resolving user conduct complaints. Any future talk page disruption will be handled under discretionary sanctions (Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar).
 * All editors on the articles and  and their associated talk pages active within the past 30 days will be warned that any disruption, including incivility, edit warring and tendentious conduct, is subject to discretionary sanctions (Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar).

Gibraltar Discretionary Sanctions
This is a courtesy note to inform you that articles and discussions about Gibraltar or concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar are subject to a discretionary sanctions remedy. Please see Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar. You are being notified per the actions logged here. Any disruptive, uncivil, or generally problematic conduct may lead to discretionary sanctions imposed by an administrator. This warning is not an indication of any wrong doing on your part. It is simply a general notice to recent editors in the topic area. Thank you for understanding. Vassyana (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Gibraltar
I have provided a warning about discussion participation at Talk:Gibraltar. This is to ensure you have been explicitly notified. This note does not indicate any wrongdoing on your part. I am sending it to all talk page participants with the past 72 hours.

As a recent participant, I explicitly invite you to join in the discussion that I have started at Talk:Gibraltar. Discussions on the talk page are going around in old circles. I am trying to help break that pattern and get the discussion focused. I look forward to your contributions in helping improve the article. --Vassyana (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Revert at AE
Hi, could you explain this edit? un☯mi 23:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

MFireland outing you
He is still at it, I suggest we take this to ANI-- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  17:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * now he is giving me vandalism warnings, I'm taking this to ANI-- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  17:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Theres an ANI thread now feel free to go over there-- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  17:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC) --18:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

What's in a name
Sorry WCM, I wan't trying to be a wise guy, by using the 'name' thing. Since I wasn't using the full name of your former account, I thought it was alright. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Responded at my talkpage, best to keep discussion in one spot. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
God speed the time when every day/ Shall be as Christmas Day. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year from this side of the sea :).--Darius (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

your copyvio note
In general, the best thing to do with those is to tag the article with the template here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Copyvio

And then follow the instructions there. I've got this one, but I thought you might want to know that for the future. Thanks for catching the copyvio! --j &#9883; e deckertalk 00:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Gibraltar
Hi and thanks for your message. It seems to me that the kind of close attention to writing that you are looking for is best dealt with sentence by sentence on article talk pages rather than on noticeboards. Also, that's why we have Bold Revert Delete. Put up the text that you yourself think is best and then let others challenge any bits they think are unsourced, misrepresent the source, aren't balanced, etc. I don't think I can be of any more help at this stage, but do post again on the board to ask for further uninvolved comments. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI - threatened vandalism spree
FYI has threatened a vandalism spree on falkland related articles. see the IP talk page. Active Banana    (bananaphone  20:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
I'm back...~! Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 15:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

oh! most definitely another one!
trying to appear Brazilian... then aiming directly for the Falklands again. 3 years ago registered now, now active at Falklands - a 100% sock. ignore the lad. noclador (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Malvinas
The Malvinas Current currently lacks a specific article, but Brazil-Malvinas Confluence covers the endpoint of this ocean current. I added the entry to the disambig page because a user could be searching up "Malvinas" when they're looking for Malvinas Current (no article) and it would be helpful to point them to an article that does exist. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 00:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we add Brazil-Malvinas Confluence as a see also link in the disambig page in that case? ~ A H  1 (TCU) 16:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward on Gibraltar
I make a proposal for a process and conditions to move forward. You are invited to share your thoughts and participate in the discussion. Cheers! --Vassyana (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Talk:Gibraltar

re mediation question
What exactly would you like to ask the other editors? It may already be something planned for discussion. --Lord Roem (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Mediation will of course start with people's "this or nothing" position. The point of the process is to first let editors let their side be said and then start checking that back through discussion and eventually, proposed compromises. For example, the 'concession point' in the start is key for bringing everyone together and think of the whole rather than themselves. I'd rather you not ask that question and let the mediation take its course. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

MedCab Case now moving into substantive talk
With all the preliminaries out of the way, the mediation cabal case you are involved in will now get underway. The first issues for substantive discussion is posted on the bottom of the talk page. I ask that you watch the page to keep up to date with other parties' responses. Cheers! Lord Roem (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Juan Manuel de Rosas
Caudillo is not exactly the same thing as dictator. Caudillos were 19th century Hispanic-American counterparts to European medieval feudal lords. They are typical in places where the State has no (or little ) authority or presence. They are local bosses, who rule their dominions as they pleased. However, there was a complex relationship between them and the people who lived under their influence. The caudillo demanded absolute respect for his authority, but usually had to make the role of the State, by aiding the people under their influence, perhaps with security, health aid, etc...

Think of a stereotypical Italian Mafia. Remember the Godfather (the first film)? How Don Corleone was an all-powerful ruler, but who also gave protection to those under their influence, in exchange for respect for his leadership? That's a typical caudillo.

And yes, Rosas was a dictator. A quite brutal and ruthless one, I might add. I've noticed that MBelgrano has carefully whitewashed not only his article, but also others related to dictators. He changes "dictatorial power" for "sum of all power", nothing more than dictatorial power, but useful to hide its true meaning from a careless reader.

Why I'm not able to find this discussion on Rosas' talk page? And wht kind of harassment you suffered? And by whom? MBelgrano? --Lecen (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. And I thought I had trouble in Wikipedia. It's quite weird when some people isn't capable of understanding that this is all fun in the end, huh? I came looking for you because I had and sometimes I still have some issues with MBelgrano. He is very protective of any article related to Argentine history and is spending quite some time whitewashing them. Anyway, thank you very much for answering back. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Isle of Ely
You appear to be engaged in a slow motion edit war on the article Isle of Ely, I would advice you engage in discussion with the other party at Talk:Isle of Ely instead of continuing. Rehevkor ✉</FONT> 16:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Rehevkor <FONT COLOR="black">✉</FONT> 20:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Stanlee Kelly for deletion
The article Stanlee Kelly is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Stanlee Kelly until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article..

I've replaced your speedy with an AfD. This might well be a hoax, but it's not such a harmful hoax that we can't live with it for another week. It's also a new editor's first article with some evident attempt to add content, so I'd rather suffer a hoax to live for a bit longer than risk WP:BITEing a new editor. If you've got access to the relevant refs (not my field I'm afraid) and they don't mention him, then please add that to the AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for reversal to Torre Monumental - as it is the official name of the tower since 1982, due to the Falklands War - and is also the common name.
I have noticed that an anonymous user unprofessionally tried to change the name from Torre de los Ingleses to Monumental.

However I attempted to move the article's name from the current name to the official name through the "Move" process, but it does not work.

I renamed the same article in German Wikipedia through the "Move" process and it did work there.

The previous name Torre de los Ingleses is not only officially used anymore since 1982, it is also much less used than the official name.

Wikipedia should reflect this as it does use official names for certain articles and places.

Could you revert the name back from Torre de los Ingleses to Torre Monumental?

Thank you.

Saguamundi