This is an archive of past discussions with Kahastok. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Don't know if you've seen it but the Mercopress article had been PRODed. I wondered if you might have time to have a look at seeing if it can be rescued, I've had a quick look and whilst it's a widely cited source in academic and other media there is very little about Mercopress itself being an online only agency. WCMemail12:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I think we'll struggle to save it. I've had a bit of a look, and the sources I found were split between those who appear to have reused our content (not always the current version) and trivial mentions - generally citations - that can't be used to write an article. Google Books gives hundreds of results where it has been used as a citation, but I haven't found a profile or actual commentary on Mercopress itself.
If you think we are missing something, might be worth converting to a userspace draft or similar. But I've not seen anything that I could hang a keep argument off at AFD. Kahastoktalk21:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, I have been taking a bit of a break from Wikipedia.
The subject clearly needs to be treated in accord with WP:FALSEBALANCE. Meaning that we shouldn't be trying to balance the fact with fiction.
To me, the most obvious problem paragraphs (in this version, which I understand is quite different from the version on Thursday) are the last para of Thwarted attack, and the last para of Outcome.
In Thwarted attack, the second paragraph needlessly recapitulates events from the first one. If there is useful additional information, it needs to be merged in. If not, then the para should be removed.
In Outcome, that's an extraordinarily long quote, included for no obvious purpose. It is not obvious from the text what is fact and what is the individual's claim. It's also entirely sourced to the Daily Express, which is unreliable. So
Thanks for your input. There were a number of SPS used, one in particular was problematic as it was blacklisted (remember TheRealHistoryMan?). When I removed it, it was edit warred back into the article. I pointed the guy to the ANI thread where it was removed and instead of acting on that I got a long rambling email telling me the source was good. I also don't see what the overview section is adding? For now, I've removed some of these problems but on past experience he'll put them straight back in. WCMemail08:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Kahlstock, I accidentally deleted this message from your page this morning, after changing my settings I clicked on the new "vandalism" button that had appeared to see what it meant and found out that it meant I reverted WCM's post. All the best and apologies to you both. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
It appears to me - particularly from edits like this - that the other editor believes that he is doing you guys an enormous favour by looking at the article. He seems to be expecting you to thank him for his benevolence and immediately agree with all of his suggestions - if not in detail than in at least in general. I think you guys are giving him a bit of a reality check, but I'm not sure he's got it yet.
He should not have tagged the article. I don't think he understands that, and I don't think he's going to. But at this stage it doesn't really matter. I think you've already let go of that and any other issues. Much easier to say from the outside, but I think you both took your eye off the content in the last few messages under Omissions/systemic bias.
More generally, I think it's clear that you and other editors are getting frustrated. Is this reasonable? He made his proposals fully nine and a half months into the FARC process. That process is now 7-8 weeks from completion. He says he's going to propose detail, but not for "several weeks", because he hasn't actually done the research that - given the context - he rather needed to do before proposing anything. He says he understands the need for the article to remain short, but it's very difficult to see how his proposal would not lengthen it significantly. The proposals he has made do not appear to be anything that has not already been discussed. He fills the talk page with walls of text that he seems to expect you to read and reply to in detail. And he acts as though you're supposed to be grateful for all this.
Personally I think there are times when asking editors not to get frustrated is asking an inhuman degree of tolerance, and I think you're getting there in this case. Kahastoktalk19:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Magnitude 7.2 earthquake strikes South Sandwich Islands
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Cornish
I changed "late eighteenth century" to "end of eighteenth century", based on my original edit, which Roger approved, my last talk page suggestion, and the sources listed on that page. Feel free to bring any objections (or indeed, your support!) to the talk page. Tewdar (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Survey about History on Wikipedia (If you reside in the United States)
I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.
Hi Kahastok. Recently, I have noticed the Legend columns are (sort of) oddly divided, and the proper version can be seen at Template:List of States. It seems to me there is no need to expand their headings into two lines. However, I am not sure how it should be done correctly. Could you fix it, please? Thank you in advance. Regards, --89.66.254.10 (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I am not quite sure what you mean, but if you are referring to the navigation aids that point readers to the second part of the table (like the line saying "Kosovo → Kosovo") this is deliberate. Readers were having difficulty distinguishing the navigation aids from full entries, and so we decided to merge the rows to make this a bit clearer. You can read the background to this change at the Duplicated listings section of the archive. Kahastoktalk20:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply, I appreciate it. Oh, I see. P.S. Since it is surrounded by two arrows, which indicate the list's direction, I have changed the heading UN member states and General Assembly observer states → UN member states and GA observer states to avoid dividing it into two lines. It seems clearer now, I believe. Do you think it is reasonable? Regards, --89.66.254.10 (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
The argument the other way would be that the number of lines will depend on monitor size. I guess with a phone it might well end up on three or four lines. Also that "GA" is not necessarily a well-known abbreviation, though if it's linked I don't think that's a huge problem. Personally, I'm not too bothered about it - I think both positions are reasonable. Kahastoktalk18:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Kahastok: ref your contribution to the requested moves at talk:Banknotes of the pound sterling, could you clarify whether you oppose all three or just the "pound sterling" one? From context [and because I agree ] I think you mean just the latter but best to disambiguate if you would, please. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I can see your point - a Non-Self-Governing Territory is very different from a non-self-governing territory. But, for some reason a clear semantic difference like this is not recognised as a good reason to use capital letters by MOS:CAPS. So if we're going by the book it's really a matter of whether it is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources. You guys seem to have a discussion on that and I haven't looked in enough detail to comment sensibly.
I would say that I think the argument that someone made per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS is a misunderstanding of the purpose of the capitals. This is not capitalised to emphasise its specialness or importance. It's capitalised because the version with capitals means a different thing from the version without. Kahastoktalk22:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Kahastok. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.