Wee Curry Monster (talk | contribs) |
→WQA Thread: new section |
||
Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
Hey, I hope you don't mind, but I've mentioned you in [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex79818|this request]]. If you have any details to add, please do. Thanks, '''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User talk:Night w|<font color="black">Night</font><font color="gray">w</font>]]</span>''' 14:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC) |
Hey, I hope you don't mind, but I've mentioned you in [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex79818|this request]]. If you have any details to add, please do. Thanks, '''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User talk:Night w|<font color="black">Night</font><font color="gray">w</font>]]</span>''' 14:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
== WQA Thread == |
|||
This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.[[User:Alex79818|Alex79818]] ([[User talk:Alex79818|talk]]) 21:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:07, 15 August 2011
|
——————————————— Wee Curry Monster's Talk Page ———————————————
|
|
“ | Many people are like garbage trucks. They run around full of garbage, full of frustration, full of anger, and full of disappointment. As their garbage piles up, they look for a place to dump it. And if you let them, they’ll dump it on you. So when someone wants to dump on you, don’t take it personally. Just smile, wave, wish them well, and move on. Believe me. You’ll be happier. --THE LAW OF THE GARBAGE TRUCK | ” |
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 166.205.137.54 (talk · contribs) 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)
- 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)
- I'm gagged, I cannot comment. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:47, 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)
A barnstar for you!
The Writer's Barnstar | |
For being a sanity checker as well as being an editor with NPOV constantly in mind. Good job~! Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Minor barnstar | |
And for the minor things you've helped me with, thanks~! Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:50, 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.[1]"
- 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, I didn't.
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 [2] and [3]. 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. [4].[5]. 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)
Thanks for peeking in to help
You peeked, you helped, you go boy! | |
I hereby award you the peek-a-boo award, bestowed for your diligence in service to Wikipedia and to associate with the rest as Jimbo's peaches. Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 01:00, 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, Nightw 14:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
WQA Thread
This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Alex79818 (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)