User talk:Wee Curry Monster/Archive 9

File:Mirage IIIEA - FAB.jpg
It'd be great if this could be shown to be free, but it's going to need some further information- date of creation, author and date of publication would be a good start. Also, it's really going to need some evidence that it is PD in the US. J Milburn (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, we know the date of creation, but the date of publication is needed, according to PD-AR-Photo. On what grounds do you believe that anything tagged with the template is PD in the US? It only talks about them being PD in Argentina. J Milburn (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Wikimedia Foundation didn't. Just because something is PD in Argentina, does not mean that it is PD in the US. J Milburn (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Civilian casualties caused by ISAF and US Forces in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

 * I've just blocked as an obvious sock and semi-protected the article for a while, but this edit does seem to be in accordance with the source (which says that the operation occurred 'yesterday'), so I've left it. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Mistake
I mistakenly did not use your current username on the Gib talk page. Sincere apologies - it was an honest slip, which I fixed immediately. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ps I hope you noticed, for the history section, I'm proposing to (re)move all detail about the battle, including mention of San Roque.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm gagged, I cannot comment. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, you're restricted to making "substantive edits" to Gibraltar unless you have posted on Talk:Gibraltar explaining your proposed edit, and 48 hours have elapsed since the time of the posting, and no editor objected to the proposed edit. For the purposes of this restriction: "substantive edit" means any edit that is not purely a typo fix, formatting change, or an exemption to the 3RR rule; "object" includes any expression of opposition to the proposed edit, regardless of the reason behind the opposition. A wholesale revert like this contravenes the restrictions you are under.  I'm obviously willing to discuss the edits I made on the talk page, so let's do that.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. I'm just trying to dethaw the article from this "disputed" state.  Again, I encourage you to work with me on this - at least to help me out by saving me hours of reading old archives (which I'm just not going to waste my time doing, I'm afraid) by pointing out the specific wording you disagree with.  If necessary, you can communicate with me on my talk page.  I'm not going to go running off and telling tales to AE on you for that.  In fact, if we manage to get something done in a collegiate atmosphere, it could even help with them lifting the restrictions on you.  So how about it?   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

For the record, that was not my understanding and it was a mistake on my part. I still object to the removal of that content. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how else to proceed - everything I do there, you revert immediately, and then you refuse to discuss because you say you're under talk page restrictions. Although you're now probably the longest serving editor there, you don't have a veto over changes, and I'm not going to penalise myself by holding back from changes to the article just because you guys managed to get yourselves into this restricted situation.  That was your collective fault, not mine - if you'd taken a leave of absence, like I did, you wouldn't be in this situation.  I can only repeat, I'm willing to work with you, on our talk pages if necessary, but not if everything starts with "no you musn't make any changes full stop".  For example, please tell me specifically what it is you object to by me moving that content, not just that you object to it.  It's impossible to have a meaningful back and forth otherwise.  Also, I have to say, I don't understand why you are complaining about these edits.  Once upon a time you were complaining vociferously about San Roque and that UN List!  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How about if I add back instead the proposal on the talk page? Would that be enough to remove the NPOV tag?   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are willing to (1) let me remove the tag at the top of the article and to place it only on the sections you feel are NPOV, which if I understand you correctly are the history and the pol/gov sections, and (2) if you set up the sandbox with your proposed initial wording which - if posted - would mean no NPOV tags at all on the article, then OK - you have a deal. If you deliver on those, I will revert my changes, remove the NPOV tag at the top, and then we can work together in the sandbox.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I only asked you to set up the sandbox with an initial proposal that would make you happy (seems fair - you suggested the sandbox) and to move the NPOV tag only to the sections you actually believe to be NPOV (seems fair - I'm not asking you to remove the tags completely), and on that basis I would then revert my changes which you're so unhappy about while we work together. If you aren't even prepared to those two things though, in return for me reverting, it doesn't bode well for our ability to work together on this.  So what's it to be?  As I've said before, I'm not under any editing restrictions, so the ball is in your court - either work with me on this, or I'll do it alone (or in conjunction with other editors who wish to join in who aren't restricted).  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

History Section NPOV
Can I assume you're now OK with having no NPOV tag in the history section of an unspecified article? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Skirmish at Top Malo House
Ok, what bizzare reason have you got for not wanting to say that the Skirmish at Top Malo House was a British victory ? It was, fair and square. The Argentines were defeated and therefore the British had the victory!
 * In the case of the Skirmish at Top Malo House there cannot be any argument over who won. It was a clear British victory.mjgm84 (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

GERBIL
-- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Declaring interests
Thanks - I'm not with Sealed PR anymore - should I declare an interest for being an Islander?? Still getting the hang of this - cheers Lisa Lisawatson69 (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Inacurracy
What did you find inaccurate in the text I modified about Argentinean and Chilean dispute with the UK in the 60s? -- Langus (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The 1955 ICJ action was rejected by Argentina, this is an important point to note, you removed that. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't.
 * Current version (removed text in bold): "Shortly after the formation of the UN in 1945, Argentina asserted its right to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. In 1947, the United Kingdom offered to submit the case to the International Court of Justice at The Hague, but Argentina refused the offer. A unilateral application by the United Kingdom in 1955 to the Court in respect of Argentine encroachment ended in deadlock when Argentina announced that it would not respect the decision of the court."
 * Proposed version (new text in bold): "Shortly after the formation of the UN in 1945, Argentina asserted its right to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. In 1947, the United Kingdom offered to submit the case to the International Court of Justice at The Hague, but Argentina and Chile (since it included Antarctic territories disputed by both countries) refused the offer. A unilateral application by the United Kingdom in 1955 to the Court ended in deadlock when they both refused to give their consent."
 * In fact, omitting Chile (as the current version does) it's definitely more inaccurate. "The refusal of Argentina and Chile to accept authority of the ICJ meant that the Antarctic case was never heard [...] and in March 1956, the case was quietly removed from the Court's list". --Langus (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No its irrelevant to mention Chile, we are talking here about 2 separate cases before the ICJ. Chile is not relevant in this context. See and. This additional material is not relevant to the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You're joking me, right? That's one document split in two PDF files...
 * It's only one case: check the sources. To mention Chile would be appropriate and more accurate. --Langus (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No you're wrong there were two separate cases filed. .. If you read the press release TWO cases were removed.
 * The Chilean case is not relevant here. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I apologize, looks like you're right on that. Funny thing is that it they are referred to as "the Antarctica case" in the source.
 * Although Chile-UK dispute is not irrelevant, it can be treated separately from that with Argentina. --Langus (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Notice
Hey, I hope you don't mind, but I've mentioned you in this request. If you have any details to add, please do. Thanks,  Night w   14:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly for all the work you put in here. Finally got a result!  Night w   04:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts, I doubt this is the last we've heard of it. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Question
I hope this edit changing your comment at Talk:Female genital mutilation is ok. It seemed like a typo that could be interpreted the wrong way. Sincerest apologies if I am mistaken, and feel free to revert. Quasi human  &#124;  Talk  20:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarification
"Neither the UK or the Falkland Islanders think there's something to resolve"

I said this based on the passage that reads "As far as the governments of the UK and of the Falkland Islands are concerned, there is no issue to resolve" in the Falkland Islands article, which is properly sourced. I don't have the intention of being belligerent.

Regards. --Langus (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Can't be arsed

 * Brother, take it easy and let it go. See also WP:Don't-give-a-fuckism. Why should we let these idiots spoil our joy of editing? Why should we let them take away our sense of joy of editing by listening to their meaningless accusation or feeble complaints? Stay the course and don't care a rap for these idiots. Both of us know that the world will never be short of wankers, why let them ruin our fun and joy? If they're playing mind games with us, then the best thing for us to do under such circumstances would be to not give a rat's ass for their absurdity and stupidity. Because eventually, they will get bored after they try, try and try again but getting no response from us. Remember WP:Observations on Wikipedia behavior#3? Thoughts? -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 12:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Newbie alert!

 * Betakittymolly seems like a clueless newbie, remember we started off much the same way too so go easy on him. Whatever he says, just ignore him for the time being, I'll take it from hereon. Best. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 14:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

YGM!
-- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Right back at you! Oops! I hope I don't get into trouble for using this!


Whack!

The above is a WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis). It is used for the purpose of making subtle adjustments to clue levels of experienced Wikipedians. For newcomers, use a minnow. For not-so-subtle adjustments, try a whale.

Any Wikipedian who wants to be open to trout slapping can add troutme to the top of his or her user page. Mugginsx (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

As an aside to your recent quote
I like a 13 clip Belgium Automatic myself. Easy for a woman to use, but gets the job done if it's needed. Kept it under my pillow for years when I lived in Miami. Mugginsx (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Joke of the day

 * I'm like flabberghasted~! Those melon famers, they never shut their front door~! -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 20:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember Craig, doing the clubs in Glasgae as Bing Hitler. The boy done good.  Wee Curry Monster talk 21:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

In case you missed it...
In case you missed it, I replied to your comment on my talk page. Thanks. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

a BIG bite
Wee, you changed the bite template to a small one. You can't see the teeth. I think I would like to give someone a "big bite" but went into edit history and could not find how you originally did it. Would you please give me a big bite? Thanks, Mugginsx (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

tapadh leat!
bifan nas fhaide!

Hope that is correct! Mugginsx (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Curious...

 * ... See this, what has the MacDonald clan got against "Facepalm"...??? I really wonder... and about your earlier dropby, apologies as I really didn't quite get the picture so I went on to other things instead. Anyway, today's my day off so I'm going to turn in early, goodnight~! :) -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Curiouser...
See here. - BilCat (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I suspected as much! Sockmasters can be quite obvious and predictable, even to editors who haven't encountered them before, as socks have their own stench! - BilCat (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Commented
Have made a comment to the page. Will look for references. Oxford DNB would probably have both but maybe not. It requires a subscription for Americans but perhaps not in Scotland. Mugginsx (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops! worded it incorrectly.  Fixed it. Mugginsx (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Tagging
Ahoy Wee Curry Monster, you have a response to a message you just left me. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

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

YGM!
-- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 14:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources for USS Trumbull
Hello again, WCM, Thought I'd give it a shot and see what surfaced for USS Trumbull and came up with these sources:
 * History of the navy of the United States of America, By James Fenimore Cooper
 * THE NAVAL HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, By WILLIS J. ABBOT
 * A history of the United States Navy, from 1775 to 1893, By Edgar Stanton Maclay
 * Warships of the world to 1900, By Lincoln P. Paine
 * CONTINENTAL NAVY ACTIONS
 * Trumbull
 * Marine Corps Legacy Museum

Hope this helps, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just added a source by Lincoln P. Paine to the above list, covering Trumbull's loss of her top mast and consequent engagement from HMS Iris, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Generalmesse is back
thanks for the warning! will keep an eye out for this POV edits too. noclador (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Guys, you have to do this without me, I've got a headache (it comes and go like the whim of my missus!) lately from watching out for them smelly socks. TBH, I need a break from the watching or I'm going to go nuts very soon. Cheers~! -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

South Orkney Islands
The location map is useful for anyone wanting to know at a glance where the South Orkney Islands are. Since there is no location map in the infobox, the correct action would have been to explain why you want to do away with location maps altogether instead of erasing it and preaching about correct actions. But in view of your aggressive mode, I will leave it at that. Xufanc (talk) 09:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please cut the drama and don't play the victim, I explained why I removed it. I noted you have done the same on several articles without thought for how it affects the article.  I do not think you're materially improving the quality of articles and in many ways detracting from it. Wee Curry Monster talk
 * I stand for what I wrote. Xufanc (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Stand for what exactly? Wee Curry Monster talk 10:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That location maps are useful. Don't you get it? Xufanc (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your point was not apparent. See those co-ordinates in the infobox, try clicking on them.  Wee Curry Monster talk 16:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

AIV rollback
What the hell, man? Why did you revert me?— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 08:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It was an accidental rollback, I immediately self-reverted. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you got in first. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me Know
Please let me know if the anon ip from Chile reappears again making personal attacks and/or engaging in block evasion. After the recent ANI thread, as well as apparent off Wiki counseling and agreement to cause no further disruption, a return to the same behavior would be a betrayal a trust even in the eyes of the most die hard supporters that ip had in reserve. I did some looking at past diffs and there's plenty of evidence to make a case for long term abuse, chronic personal attacks, and habitual block evasion. Pursuing it against a dead and archived ANI thread would have looked like vendetta seeking, but reporting a new incident would be in the best interest of this site. Like I said, just let me know. -OberRanks (talk) 04:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

resource request
Hi,

I've found the journal article on Matthew Brisbane that you requested at the resource exchange back in November. You can find a link to the article on that page. Best, GabrielF (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
causa sui (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

no consensus
Hi I appreciate your position as regards Occupy marines - please take a little time to consider Causa sui's offer of moving to no-consensus is not a bad offer.. that way in a few months, the notable is notable forever votes will be nul and void... ? Regards.. Youreallycan (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the revert on my talk page. Pfainuk talk 10:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
Just wishing you and yours a Happy Christmas! Mugginsx (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Falklands
Methinks we have a young Major at Staff College at the moment. The manner doesn't suggest the maturity that a Lt Col on the grown ups course would bring to the discussion

ALR (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Gutting Occupy Marines
Your latest edits to Occupy Marines are clearly an attempt to eviscerate the article without discussing these issues beforehand with other editors. I shall leave the choice up to you as to how we proceed. Either you undo ALL of your most recent peremptory edits and pursue these matters in constructive Discussion with other editors, or I'll report you for edit warring. JohnValeron (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not impressed, report me for what, editing articles to wikipedia standards. Hold on, I'll get some popcorn ready for that WP:BOOMERANG.  Wee Curry Monster talk 15:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

User:JohnValeron states in his edit summary Upon further reflection removed my Note as reasoning is futile. John you were not reasoning, you were threatening. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

User:JohnValeron
Hi there. Just regarding this guy, I know as well as anyone else how infuriating he can be, but the fact is that he seems to gain more satisfaction out of conflict than actually improving wikipedia. To that end, I reckon it's best for you simply not to rise to the parts of his comments which are part of the battle inside his head and concentrate instead on the minority of his contributions which actually regard the encyclopaedia. You don't need to stick it to him; if he carries on like this then eventually he'll piss off the wrong people and get blocked. Just try and ignore any prickly comments he makes because rising to it is exactly what he wants. Basa lisk inspect damage⁄berate 16:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact, scratch that, someone's already given him a beating with the banhammer. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 17:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
I hope everything is going well for you, and I hope you enjoy these holidays with friends and loved ones. --  At am a  頭 01:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
Dear Wee, I wish you Merry Christmass, and good health and every success in the New Year! Best, Apcbg (talk) 08:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Wee, I join Atama and Apcbg and wish you Merry Christmass, and good health and every success in the New Year!. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability at Christmas
"Things are not what they appear to be: nor are they otherwise." On an equally Buddhist but less ambiguous note, I wish you and yours a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
Thanks for the Christmas card. Very nice. Have a great New Year. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
Hi there. I have offered to mediate a MedCab case you are involved in here. If all involved parties accept this offer, I hope to be able to bring a reconciliation on the issue. I would appreciate it if you could read the statement I posted on the page and let me know if you accept my offer of mediation. Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
Hello again. This is just a quick message to let you know that the Mediation Cabal case you are involved in is now under way. A set of ground rules has been laid out, awaiting approval of all parties involved. This is the last time I shall send a general talk page message regarding the case (unless I have specific reason to do so) - therefore, if you have not already, I recommend that you add the case page to your watchlist. If you have any problems with the mediation process, or if you are unable to participate, please let me know as soon as possible. Thank you for your co-operation. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

territorial disputes
Hi WCM,

I have a doubt about the Template:Territorial disputes involving Argentina and I would like to know your opinion in User_talk:Keysanger. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 18:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Necessary?
WCM, is there really any need for this? Incivility to a newbie like this isn't going to get us anywhere. I've left him a comment on his talk page. Basa lisk inspect damage⁄berate 15:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Except its not a newbie but point noted.

Although newbies may be delicious served with some Fava beans and a nice Chianti, taking a nibble is actively discouraged. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Love that template, definitely stealing it Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 15:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I created it. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice choice to strike the comment. Also, I've replied to your RfC question on my talk page. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 17:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

So, what have the Scots ever done for us?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/so-what-have-the-scots-ever-done-for-us-just-101-of-the-innovations-caledonia-gave-the-world-6289832.html Nice article. I am sure there are many other things as well. Thought I'de show you in case you missed this. Mugginsx (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulista01 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

HMS Sheffield (D80)
May I kindly request that you reconsider your rather hasty reversion of my addition to HMS Sheffield (D80) quoting 'rm fringe nonsense per WP:FRINGE': IMHO this is addition meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion - it has a neutral point of view, is not original research, and is verifiable from a reliable source - a book published by a respected journalist (who is also Deputy Director and Anchor of TV Channel Rossiya, a member of the governing Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, life member of the Russian TV Academy and a full delegate of the World Economic Forum in Davos  who is also widely quoted by UK and Argentine media for its analysis of Soviet involvement in the 1982 war in South Atlantic.  Thanks 85.210.199.3 (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In his book Fidel. Football. Falklands: the Latin American Diary, published in 2008, Russian journalist Sergey Brilëv claims that HMS Sheffield was located as a result of Soviet supplied satellite intelligence gathered by Kosmos 1365, rather than the Neptune aircraft.
 * You can request but my answer will be the same. Its a fringe theory and does not belong in the article.  If you disagree you're welcome to raise the issue at the article talk page.  Wee Curry Monster talk 09:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And btw Kosmos 1365 was launched 14 May 1982, Sheffield was sunk 4 May 1982 - neat trick to track the Shiny Shef before it was launched. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV
A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The Possible Reason
Hello WCM. I was looking at Empire of Brazil related topics, and came across Template:Empire of Brazil. What's interesting about this template is its history, where "War of the Triple Alliance" overtime evolves into "Paraguayan War". Coincidentally (or not), the users involved in this "evolution" are the ones heavily arguing in favor of it now. Also coincidentally (or not), this fits in with Lecen's statement: "There is a reson too: all other previous wars fought in the region which are directly connected to it have similar names, such as Cisplatine War and Platine War". My guess is that this template is the apple of discord which, for the sake of structure, prompted the users to change the name "War of the Triple Alliance" to "Paraguayan War". I know that this doesn't add anything towards the discussion, but I thought you might be interested in finding a possible reason as to why they so ardously argue their point. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 19:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WCM, "Benyosef" is a last name (I've Googled it). Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 16:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Re-establishment_of_British_rule_on_the_Falkland_Islands
I do not understand your reversion of the note that Silas Duncan virtually depopulated the islands (except for a couple of Gouchos). Especially when this is supported with a reference to Duncan's own reports. The depopulation may have been voluntary but the ships that visited the Falklands during the year after this event reported that they were deserted. If you look at the political goings on in the Admiralty and London the British used this as one of the justifications for assuming sovereignty over the entire Falklands - prior to this they had only sovereignty over West Falkland (grudgingly recognised by the Spanish). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.27.128 (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I am still trying to get to grips with your objection, re-reading your edit comment it seems to be mostly an objection about whether the removal of population was voluntary. It was. If you wish to amend the sentence to show that the administration and all of the population that could be contacted asked to be evacuated I would be happy because the point would still remain that the islands were effectively deserted. See http://www.ussduncan.org/silas_page13.htm for facsimiles of Duncan's reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.27.128 (talk) 11:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all this is not an article about 1831, its about the incident of 1833. The information added was only tangentially related and not the subject of the focus of the article.   Secondly it was badly written as to imply that the settlers were deported.   The incident of 1831 is relevant in that it was the impetus to follow Vernet's and Parish's suggestions for a permanent British presence in 1833.  But that doesn't mean we go to town on the subject.  Wee Curry Monster talk 15:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * To which I add its inaccurate. Not everyone chose to leave and not everyone left were Gauchos.  Some chose to stay in the settlement.


 * The added text is based on Duncan's report which says that the entire population was removed except some Gou Chers inland. Perhaps it should be prefaced by "According to the Commander of the USS Lexington..". His original report can be seen at the link above (see page 1 of his full report). The subsequent British occupation of the Islands was indeed influenced by the intelligence that the Islands had been abandoned (whether this was 100% true or not). By the way, what is your documentary evidence that "some chose to stay in the settlement"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.27.128 (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I don't know where you got that from but its wrong. British occupation proceeded because of fears that the Americans were intent on establishing themselves in the islands not because they were "depopulated".  My evidence is an extensive library on Falklands history for example The History of the Falkland Islands by Mary Cawkell, if you so desire I could name the 20 or so who stayed.  The raid is of relevance the offering of passage is not.  Wee Curry Monster talk 17:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I got the statement about removal of the entire population from | Silas Duncan's original report. The text reads: "I have confined the individuals engaged in these transactions, who could be identified, and have besides brought off the whole of the population consisting of about forty persons, with the exception of some Gou chors or Horsemen who were encamped in the interior, and are employed killing cattle. – But in taking this step I have consulted their own wishes, and they have embarked on board the Lexington by general consent;..". If you have documentary proof that Silas Duncan is mistaken that would be interesting to see - any references+quotes? The voluntary abandonment of the colony by its administration is in itself of great interest and the "entire population" leaving is an important event. It surely deserves a mention whether we can find a reference to its effects on subsequent diplomacy or not. The administration certainly did leave, as for the "entire population" it will be interesting to see your sources. 86.4.27.128 (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Gives the source and the names of residents. Cawkell p.55 confirms Dickson was there in 1831, in Tatham p.197, p.203 and p.544 "About 20-24 people remained at Port Louis." Sorry but no I don't see the need to mention it - on this article. This information is only tangential to the subject. It is documented on History of the Falkland Islands and I don't see it is needed here. 19:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The depopulated period was between (about) December 31st 1831 and Mestivier and Pinedo's voyage arriving on October 7th 1832. The Clio arrived on December 7th 1832. As you say, a fair number of people of all nationalities arrived ready for the events of 1833. Deserting or being forced off the Islands and leaving a claim to sovereignty as just a plaque or an old flag has been practiced by both the Argentines and the British so is an important point in the arguments about sovereignty. I will leave this now, thanks for the chat. As you are a major contributor I cede sovereignty to you :-). Please amend as you see fit.  Best wishes. 86.4.27.128 (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The population remained from 1831 right through till 1833 and after. The Falklands weren't depopulated, nor did a new population arrive on the Clio.  If the information were relevant I would be amenable to including it. Sorry but it isn't, its that simple.  Wee Curry Monster talk 22:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, no, its up to you, I am a newbie. This discussion has stimulated my interest in the history of this area. I noticed that the claim to the Falklands between 1829 and 1862 was made by the State of Buenos Aires and not by the Argentine Confederation. Buenos Aires was attacked by the Argentine Confederation in 1859 and annexed over the next couple of years. Do you think that affects the sovereignty claims? 86.4.27.128 (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of things that affect the claim.
 * First of all the claim is that in 1820, Jewett was sent to the islands to assert a claim. This isn't true, he put into the islands as the result of storm damage and whilst there made a declaration in support of a salvage claim on the wreck of the Uranie in Berkley Sound.  He never told his employers and they only found out about it a year later when it was published as a foreign new story.  Nor was he an officer in the ARA, he was a privateer employed by a group of BA businessmen to captain the Heroina, a ship they'd bought for the purpose.
 * Second a claim on the basis of Vernet's settlement is somewhat flawed in that Vernet also sought permission from the British to set it up. Vernet played both sides, urging the British to setup a garrison, judging, correctly as it turned out, that he Republic did not have the wherewithal to protect a remote settlement.
 * Thirdly, all of the proclamations made claiming the Falklands were made by an illegal Government, whose proclamations were declared null and void by its successor.
 * Fourthly, in 1850, Britain and Argentina concluded the Convention of Settlement, 1850 Convention of Settlement, putting an end to the existing differences, and of restoring perfect relations of friendship,. This settled the matter once and for all.  At this point all Argentine protests over the Falklands ceased for 35 years until revived during the affair of the map in 1885, then were forgotten about till the 1930s.
 * Fifthly, it is claimed that Argentina has continuously protested. This is untrue, it made an annual protest from 1833 till 1850 and did not raise the matter in the Argentine congress til 1941 - a gap of 91 years.  The modern claim was revived in the 1930s by Palacios and his cronies and subsequently adopted by Peron.  Peron openly declared he was using it as a device to unite the people against the British as part of his campaign to nationalise the Argentine railways.
 * There are many other flaws. Argentina cites Utis Possidetis Juris as the legal basis for its claim.  Utis Possidetis Juris is not as Argentina asserts recognised as a general principle of international law, it was originally agreed at the Conference of Lima in 1848 as an agreement between South American states as a means to settle border disputes.  Argentina refused to sign up to it.  Subsequently several former colonial states have agreed to adopt it as a principle for settling disputes but it is by no means a general principle.  Interestingly it is also known as Utis Possidetis Juris of 1810 as it used the date of 1810 to fix the point at which the borders were set.  In 1810, the penal colony of Puerto Soledad was administered from Montevideo, so any claim on the Utis Possidetis Juris principle would actually confer a claim on Uruguay not Argentina.
 * Argentina also variously claims that under the Treaty of Utrecht Britain agreed not to settle there, this is simply untrue and also under the Nootka Convention Britain abandoned its claim. Britain has never accepted Nootka applied to the Falklands and as best as I can tell it was an argument formulated by Argentine Paul Groussac in the late 19th Century - more than a century after the event.  Argentina also cites the Treaty of Tordessillas but that is such a laughable claim few take it seriously.
 * In answer to your question, it does have an effect but probably not in the way you might expect. Contrary to the Argentine claim, Spain never transferred sovereignty to Argentina until the period 1859-1863 when it recognised the independence of the Republics of South America.  The various territorial claims have no legal basis before then. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Need for assistance
Hi, as you know I have been looking around Wikipedia, comparing the articles with my own knowledge and references elsewhere. I have been trying to pin down the extent of the United Provinces, got a map of how it changed and added it to United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata. It was instantly removed without comment. I have also tried to change one or two other aspects of the articles about this period and received the same treatment. I am happy to give way to constructive reasons why my contributions are not wanted. I would be very grateful if you could take a look at why the map that I added was just instantly cut. 86.4.27.128 (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Marines
Hi WCM. Look, I understand your misgivings about using the Raw Story as a source, and I might even agree with you, but at this point I think fighting with all the other editors over there isn't getting us anywhere. I know some of them are at this point just doing it to wind you up, but if you carry on like this, then eventually one of them will just raise it on a drama board, and you will look (rightly or wrongly) as if you're in the wrong. Better just to accept it and move on for now. It's very possible that in a few months time, you may look back after a successful AfD and see that it didn't even matter. Better to leave it for now; you can always raise concerns later when it's more important. You've definitely made your point. As always, I'm just trying to help. Basa lisk inspect damage⁄berate 10:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * OK I can see your point, I figured it was just baiting for myself. The stupid thing is in its current form I wouldn't nominate it for deletion, if they continue to edit war self-promotional stuff into the article it becames a much clearer deletion candidate. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well this is exactly my point. If we follow procedure and allow consensus to introduce cruft, it'll just get AfD'd anyway. Doesn't really matter in the long run. Liking the Scottishness of your arguments, by the way! Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 08:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
Hi there, I'm sending this message to everyone involved in the Falklands War mediation case. After some discussion, it seems that the established consensus was to include Margaret Thatcher only in the infobox for the war, which has not changed since the initiation of the case. We now need to establish whether or not an RfC or discussion should be held regarding the role of military history infoboxes in general. Could you please indicate your position at the bottom of this section. I am hoping that we can get moving with this again to reach a conclusion that we are all happy with, and this will help us to do that. Thank you for your time. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
TransporterMan ( TALK ) 20:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
<i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update
Dear : Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/09 January 2012/Falklands War

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, ItsZippy, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 21:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

British papers
Hi WCM,

I found British papers 1832-1833, that could be interestng for you. Also, regarding your argumentation, I found following link: :que se instalo en la bahia Francesa con su familia y unos cuarenta colonos ingleses y alemanes. Be aware that the book is dated to 1889!. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 01:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Agent 78787 talk  contribs 21:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Agent 78787 talk  contribs 21:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Justin, I give you a long overdue appology.
Dear Justin,

It has been a long while since we had our run in on the most unpleasant of circumstances, you may remember me as User:Phoenix500, Placidsux923 or Talor13. I have come to you bearing a long overdue but wholehearted apology, last June I behaved inexcusably, disruptively, uncivilly and almost trollishly. I was stubborn and callus with my edits to the article Territorial claims in Antarctica, I didn’t give an ounce of respect to wikipedia with the edits I had made and the socks I had created to prove my point, and I wronged you and this website in the process. You may not believe it but the one week block and the banning of my sock puppets opened my eyes and in a sense enlightened me in more than just the wiki world, when my anger over the block dissipated I began to feel regret for what I did, regret is something I was not used to feeling, I was always the child who always got his way, I was and still am bad at taking criticism and accepting when I am wrong. This regret I felt has hung over me like a dark cloud, even now almost a year latter, because my treatment and disrespect towards you and this website back in june was so unforgivable and almost unmentionable I have spent hours of my own time feeling ashamed but not sure how to make up for it, even my mom was disappointed when I came to her and told her of how I blatantly and uncivilly typed you angrily and judgmentally and then told you not to type me back for I wouldn’t respond, even I knew it was uncalled for, I disrupted wikipedia to make a point that made no sense as to which I don’t really know hat it was. I was beyond rude to you and behaved like an asinine jackass, but that’s not my character, I don’t know who I thought I was, I am ashamed in my self for that, lord knows I wouldn’t have wanted anyone to have done that to me, I unfairly judged you when all you did was abide the rules and policies of this website we are both guests on. What I did can not be forgiven, I ask not for forgivness or for you to even accept my apology, I understand instead I come just to let you know all you have done for me. I need to thank you, you have made me a better wikipedian, and it is because of our encounter, had I never been brought to justice I never would have taken the time to not just read the rules, but learn to understand the community and the importance of Wikipedia, I realize being a part of this website I am contributing to the preservation and distribution of all human knowledge, I realize now it is our job not to win, that wikipedia is not about winning or trying to sway things to personal opinions but rater the truth, that which is factual, that our job is to tell and share the truth, and my using of multiple accounts to pretend to be separate people is pure dishonesty and the opposite of what wikipedia is about, so I now operate and use only one account, this one, the name Placidsux923 has been legitimately changed by an administrator to a more appropriate name that better suits me. I have since made it a goal to improve and contribute positively to this website I once wronged, I have now surpassed 6000 edits and have 27 articles remaining in article space many of which were stubs but some are longer and cover a variety of subtopics, such as This one, I have joined Wikimedia Commons and now contribute a great deal of maps, and I have joined several Wikiprojects on wikipedia and have become a much more established editor in the community. I have much more to tell you and thank you for, I can tell you what impact this has made on me in the real world and much much more, but only if you wish me to, I fully respect and understand if you choose to ignore me after all the bad I had said to you in the past, this note was something I just needed to say to put my heart at ease, I thank you for your time then, today and everything else in between. I hope to talk to you again but this time as something closer than friends or just fellow wikipedians rather than enemies. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

If you disagree with the style of writing and wish to make it clearer that these are allegations (though I cannot see how this would not already be perfectly clear), then the proper remedy is to revise the language, not to delete the entire section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.189.230 (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This content was NOT added in disagreement with the pre-existing content. And whether there is a prosecution underway is irrelevant. Quoting from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_crimes - "Since many war crimes are not ultimately prosecuted (due to lack of political will, lack of effective procedures, or other practical and political reasons[2]), historians and lawyers will often make a serious case that war crimes occurred, even if there was no formal investigations or prosecution of the alleged crimes or an investigation cleared the alleged perpetrators." Furthermore, the information is not at all "stale" since it all clearly relates to the 2012 allegations, published just last week in the Daily Mail. 66.176.189.230 (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It was my reading of the Daily Mail's article that caused me to come to Wikipedia to update the relevant pages. The Daily Mail's article is dated 2 March 2012. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2109429/A-dirty-war-British-soldiers-shot-dead-enemy-troops-waving-white-flag-Argentinian-prisoners-bayoneted-cold-blood-An-ex-Para-tells-horrors-Falklands.html#comments 66.176.189.230 (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC) 66.176.189.230 (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Make haste and hurry~!!! <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 22:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Template:User wikipedia/arseholes
Template:User wikipedia/arseholes, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User wikipedia/arseholes and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Template:User wikipedia/arseholes during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Calabe1992 02:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the barnstar. You're right, it's a huge mess. Let me know if you have any other ideas. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Erm.. because races condemned to one hundred years of solitude did not have a second opportunity on earth?
Before reaching the final line, however, he had already understood that he would never leave that room, for it was foreseen that the city of mirrors (or mirages) would be wiped out by the wind and exiled from the memory of men at the precise moment when Aureliano Babilonia would finish deciphering the parchments, and that everything written on them was unrepeatable since time immemorial and forever more, because races condemned to one hundred years of solitude did not have a second opportunity on earth.--Shirt58 (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * y un abrazo right back @ you, WCM. That reminds me of when I first came across the term "pelado" in Under the Volcano.  One of my favourite bits in the novel is when the Mexican Doctor talks in English to the Frenchman Jacques Laruelle, "Sickness is not only in body, but in that part used to be call soul. Poor your friend he spend his money on earth in such continuous tragedies." Oh cripes, now I've now quoted Blake, Gabriel García Márquez, and Malcolm Lowry all within a 24 hour period.  No doubt there is probably some corollary of WP:3RR limiting Eng. Lit. nerds to two nerdy quotes per 24 hours... --Shirt58 (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank You
It seems the Chileans have caught up with me here, hahaha. Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. He did the same thing here as well. Not sure if to take it as a joke or more seriously. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 14:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Ping~!

 * ANOTHER PING PLEASE~! -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Abenyosef and your ultimate opinion
Hey WCM, I'm wondering...what is your ultimate opinion on the User:Abenyosef SPI case? There's a few things that don't seem to add up to me. I stopped following what was going on the Talk:Falkland Islands because it gave me a headache and I was busy in real life. I also don't have time to read the whole SPI case. As you are the one who dealt with Abenysoef the most I was wondering what your view is after all that has happened. Basically, guilty or not guilty and whether the topics he created and commented on were disruptive or in anyway useful. --Τασουλα (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty convinced it was Alex, partly for reasons I can't reveal on wikipedia, but ultimately the behavioural and circumstantial evidence is pretty conclusive.  I don't feel the topics he created were all that useful.  It was fairly clear that he was about changing the aricle to favour Argentina's sovereignty claim; he wanted to remove certain details and promote others.  I doubt we've heard the last from him either.  There will be more sleeper accounts out there.  Wee Curry Monster talk 17:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm...about your first point, I'm taking that as off-wiki interaction, which I would probably not personally indulge myself in with someone like that. People like Alex come here expecting we are the same as them - prideful nationalists - but that simply isn't the case. Oh sorry, I'm ranting -.- Alex was fairly clever this time if it was him (After all, not 100% sure) and evaded detection for a long time. But look at it this way, the next sleeper account will have to make there edits even less like the previous sock, so it will be more and more obvious each time. Maybe one day he'll go away and do something more useful with his life. (And he's probably reading this conversation right now, how creepy) --Τασουλα (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't had any off-wiki interaction for a long time but I now know where to look. An off-guard comment by one of the Argentine editors tipped me the wink that I was being "discussed".  They think I'm MI5 (trained in silent killing and flower arranging).  Wee Curry Monster talk 19:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Their...a funny bunch. Well I wonder if they'll have anything to say if I let slip my father is a Falklands veteran (oopsie) I'd love it if someone like Alex swung by our Islands, he'd probably expect us to all be MI5 agents watching him or burning the Argentine flag. Oh, the one who tipped you, maybe he's one of these --Τασουλα (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that the conspiracy theorist are always full of conspiracies, even when the conspiracy is only in theory. Some folks just haz too much free time on their legs... ... (PS: I just got back from my vacation~!) -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 08:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again...

 * See WP:ANI, he just won't quit it even when I'm gone for my vacation and now that I'm back, he's at it again~! Talk about WP:Competency is required... -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 12:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh and by the way, I've alerted User:The Bushranger to help keep an eye on Falklands War-related article pages since it is the 30th anniversary of the cowards landing. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And another thing, me thinks it is high time you start to archive your talk page as it is taking forever to load whenever my fastest browser lands here, while my slowest browser just timed out altogether~! -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 15:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I will do, just posted at ANI about my new friend. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)