Jump to content

User talk:Wee Curry Monster/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

RFC discussion of your username (Justin A Kuntz)

Hello, Justin A Kuntz, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Wikipedia has a policy on what usernames editors can use. Unfortunately, concerns have been raised that your username may be incompatible with that policy. You can contribute to the discussion about it here. Alternatively, if you agree that your username may be problematic and are willing to change it, it is possible for you to keep your present contributions history under a new name. Simply request a new name here following the guidelines on that page, rather than creating a whole new account. Thank you. -- Ryan Postlethwaite 22:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


Hello Justin A Kuntz, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! Sandahl 22:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

--Sandahl 22:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, just getting to grips with things before I attempt to do an edit. Justin A Kuntz 22:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
If you don't mind my saying so, usually it's best to jump right in and help where you see something to do that you are interested in. If you just do what seems sensible, usually it's right, and at worst it's easy to fix. In fact it looks like you've already made one edit to revert vandalism - if it's that easy to fix deliberate damage, then you shouldn't worry too much about accidental damage!
Cheers, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 23:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement, I've an interest in several topics that are obviously sensitive so I'm trying to make sure that I don't tread on too many toes. Obviously I will with those with an entrenched partisan POV but I hope to bring a more NPOV. Justin A Kuntz 08:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Falkland Islands

Please read WP:V, and whilst you're at it, WP:3RR. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:V and WP:RS. You're missing the point of my revert. Thanks. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
You have been blocked for a period of twenty-four hours for edit-warring on Falkland Islands. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 23:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wee Curry Monster (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was not indulging in an edit war, merely taking the article back to the previous consensus view point. There is an extensive, tortuous argument that eventually led to this consensus on Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive2. As this is a controversial topic I suggested that a consensus was achieved in discussion before editing the main page. Please also note the comments in discussion and User talk:Rebelguys2. Part of the confusion may have arisen because I inadvertently pasted the wrong link as a reference. I've only just realised I'd screwed up and was about to correct it when I found I was blocked.

Decline reason:

No one cares about your reasons for reverting, except when the edits you are reverting are vandalism. This is clearly a content dispute, and WP:3RR clearly applies. You broke it, so this block is quite judicious. — Kurykh 00:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

WP:3RR refers to making more than 3 revisions in 24 hrs. Check the history I made 3 in a 24 hr period, check the history carefully as one was a self-revert. So I didn't in fact break the rule. Justin A Kuntz 14:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Posted from the the talk page of Rebelguys2

No response? Is that because perhaps I was right and didn't break any rule? Justin A Kuntz 21:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it's because you clearly did break the rules (at 22:35, 7 July 2007 at 22:40, 7 July 2007 at 22:58, 7 July 2007 at 00:37, 8 July 2007 at 01:31, 8 July 2007), and now you're pretty much just trolling. Quit wallowing in self-pity and making yourself out to be some kind of victim. — Rebelguys2 talk 00:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

And my response

Suggest you check again, noting the comment above from User talk:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick as already pointed out to you I self-reverted in order to stop an edit war rather than start one. In fact I've repeatedly pointed this out to you but it seems you can't be bothered to check. I believe that self-reverts don't count to WP:3RR. While we're on the subject, suggest you also look at my comments where I asked to you many times to take it to talk. I also posted a comment on your talk page. My conduct was doing everything possible to avoid an edit war.
Suggest you also check WP:civil and WP:No personal attacks and while we're on the subject Wikipedia:Assume good faith, personally I tend to think Quit wallowing in self-pity and making yourself out to be some kind of victim does count as a personal attack. Similarly and now you're pretty much just trolling does not strike me as assuming good faith or being civil either.
Just a suggestion but before adding a {fact} to one of my edits it might be a good idea to check the reference already cited. Thank you.
Now at the beginning I would have been content with a simple I made a mistake, I apologise. The ability to admit to and apologise for a mistake is not a character flaw. I would probably in turn have apologised for calling your remarks smart ass. Please don't bother now, it would ring hollow after your last remarks. PS I'm moving on, moving past this and considering it a learning experience.
You have a nice day now. Justin A Kuntz 08:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Red Hat said he reverted his own edit. But, if you can show me the self-revert to any two or more of the specific edits above — meaning, you would have made only three reverts — I'd be happy to leave a message in your block log exonerating your of breaking any policies. Unfortunately, I just don't see it.
So stop trolling, wallowing in self-pity, and making yourself to be some kind of victim. Those aren't personal attacks, as it's pretty clear that's exactly what you're doing. And it's rich to see such accusations coming from someone who calls my work smart ass and goes on to use smug, smart aleck edit summaries]. — Rebelguys2 talk 08:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Unindent 

01:31, July 8, 2007 Justin A Kuntz (Talk | contribs) (37,381 bytes) (undo)

Is a self-revert to the previous consensus view point, please note that this was pointed out to you by Red Hat and I quote.

I had actually self reverted myself because I didn't at first realise that '''the previous edit by Mr Kuntz was also a self-revert, to a previous version that contained both "sides" and a [citation needed] tag'''. I would encourage you to revert yourself. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Justin A Kuntz 08:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


Aw, aren't things better when you ask nicely and stop throwing bizarre accusations of newbie-biting and personal attacks around? Anyway, I see that the 01:31 edit is different than the previous couple of edits, but I don't see how you think it's good enough to be considered a "self-revert." Here's what I see:

  1. John removes a few lines.
  2. You revert John's edit.
  3. I revert your edit.
  4. You revert my edit.
  5. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick reverts your edit.
  6. You revert The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick's edit.
  7. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick reverts your edit.
  8. You revert The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick's edit, adding back in additional lines about General Moore.

Clearly, these four edits all change ". The English language is in common use there." to "with the English language and names in common use rather than Spanish varients promoted by some foreign media" and change "Non British English-language media sources often use the ISO designation of "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)", whereas Spanish-language media refer to the territory simply as "Las Islas Malvinas"." to "Largely as a result of the Falklands War of 1982, many Falkland Islanders now consider the use of the name Malvinas to be offensive. Non British English-language media sources often use the ISO designation of "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)", whereas the Spanish-speaking media refer to the territory simply as "Las Islas Malvinas"."

The only difference with the edit at 01:31, July 8, 2007 is that this one reintroduced the line about General Moore, but it still reverted everything else that the previous three had. Introducing a new line, and changing nothing else, doesn't make the fourth revert completely different from the others.

And why was it reverted?

  1. Unreferenced? Yes. No reference was ever actually provided, except one to a mirror in the fourth edit, which I assume is a reference to the letter on the talk page.
  2. Unverified? Yes. Without references, we cannot verify.
  3. Poorly worded? Yes. Qualifiers like "some people" do this, or "many people" do that, really aren't clear and helpful terms, especially since some of these changes aren't in the lede. There is clearly room for terms that aren't pointlessly general (See Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms). Additionally, there's a misspelled word in your edit.
  4. Misleading? I thought John put this pretty clearly on the talk page here. — Rebelguys2 talk 09:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The longest response I've ever had from you. For once actually helpful and had you done that originally I would probably have responded differently. Did you also note the comment above John from myself.
For now I've reverted to the previous consensus presenting both sides, I suggest that in line with the guidelines on disputed articles that a discussion takes place before edits.
The edit I presented took everything back to the consensus view point before everyone had gotten all excited and the people involved were happy. The words might have been different but the sentiment was there. As noted by Red Hat above it was a 'self-revert'.
So are you going to keep your promise and leave a message in my block log? Justin A Kuntz 09:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


Only now helpful? The original point was that it was unreferenced, unverified, not neutral, though that didn't seem to faze you much. I suppose the length of my response is more important than its content, then. Anyway, I am going to keep my promise, but I am still waiting for the evidence.
You added, at least four times after John's original removal of the content, "with the English language and names in common use rather than Spanish varients promoted by some foreign media" and "Largely as a result of the Falklands War of 1982, many Falkland Islanders now consider the use of the name Malvinas to be offensive."
That's a violation of the 3RR policy, plain and simple. — Rebelguys2 talk 09:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, I'd actually done my level best to keep it neutral, I notice you've had a look at the other edits I'd done. Are they not NPOV?
I'm also curious, why did you choose today of all days to go and have a look at my edits? I noted earlier you went and slapped a [citation needed] on one, when it already had a reference supplied. Just curious, nothing else because the tone of your response does indicate a certain hostility. But then text does not convey emotion well.
Two other editors considered what I'd done a self-revert and were happy. As I have pointed out many times, I took it back to a consensus view point. I've admitted to an error on my part and indicated that I probably shouldn't have addressed your remarks as smart ass. So having pointed to a self-revert are you now going to keep your promise or not? Justin A Kuntz 10:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I went back today because you happened to bring it to my attention. You positioned the reference before the line in question, so I didn't see it, though I suppose your subsequent edit summary was a bit wise-ass. But, anyway, I've rearranged it.
As far as I can tell, you undid John's edit, undid the revert, undid the subsequent revert, and then undid the revert after that, adding in an extra line. Of course I keep my promises. But you still haven't shown where you undid one of these edits. — Rebelguys2 talk 10:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
If you are simply going to argue semantics over what is or is not a self-revert, then to my mind that does not assume good faith. I made what I considered a self-revert, it took the article back to a previous version that contained both "sides" and a [citation needed] tag, please notice not my words. Now if you look at your edits, they removed the consensus view point. I've pointed out that both of the editors considered it a self-revert why don't you? Justin A Kuntz 10:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Because you re-added the aforementioned content four times. A self-revert would have been undoing 22:40 to John's revision, undoing 00:37 to Red Hat's revision, or undoing 22:58 or 01:31 to my revisions. At this point, I don't think the blocking administrator, Tariqabjotu, was mistaken in his decision to do so. However, you can bring it back up with him on his talk page, or you can contact the administrator to declined to unblock you, User:Kurykh. — Rebelguys2 talk 11:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I take it that means that you're sticking with a narrow interpretation of what constitutes a self-revert and I won't see you making good on that promise anytime soon then? Thats fine, somehow I didn't expect you to. Well its been an interesting learning experience. Farewell. Justin A Kuntz 12:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for information BTW.

And why was it reverted?

1. Unreferenced? Yes. No reference was ever actually provided, except one to a mirror in the fourth edit, which I assume is a reference to the letter on the talk page.

Response: An error on my part, I had pasted the wrong URL in the reference. It was intended to be the reference that I have now included in the article not the letter on the talk page. Was it the fourth edit? I thought I'd put it in earler.

2. Unverified? Yes. Without references, we cannot verify.

Response: See above, if you had asked what I was trying to do then perhaps this would not have arisen. With the correct reference it is easily verifiable. You seem to be hammering me for a simple mistake, for which I have already apologised.

3. Poorly worded? Yes. Qualifiers like "some people" do this, or "many people" do that, really aren't clear and helpful terms, especially since some of these changes aren't in the lede. There is clearly room for terms that aren't pointlessly general (See Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms). Additionally, there's a misspelled word in your edit.

Response: This is the first time that you've pointed out a typo or indeed to that policy, none of your responses actually helped by pointing to something like that. None of your previous comments have been a constructive criticism. Personally after looking at that policy I don't think my edit falls into that category.

4. Misleading? I thought John put this pretty clearly on the talk page here.

Response: Actually I agree with John's comments, which is why I reverted to the earlier consensus. Please note that you don't appear to have appreciated that John's comments in fact agreed with something I'd just posted. Justin A Kuntz 13:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Falkland Islands

I would like you to consider removing the violation of WP:3RR from my block log. If you look at the edit history, in the 24 hr period before I was blocked I'd made 3 edits. In the previous period I'd made a couple, decided that what I'd put in was against the consensus and then self-reverted to the previous consensus. The two other users involved were happy with what I'd put. I'd reverted Rebelguys2 edits because they were changing what was the consensus agreed. Please note my comments on the talk page and given that I'd self-reverted I believe the block for breaking WP:3RR was a mistake. Justin A Kuntz 11:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, Tariqabjoutu — I think he worded his request a bit poorly, so just to clarify: I told him that I'd leave a note in his block log saying that the original block was unjustified if he could show me that he didn't actually break WP:3RR. Obviously, we can't usually remove stuff from block logs ... — Rebelguys2 talk 12:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
To start, one does not have to make four reverts in twenty-four hours to be blocked for edit-warring. That being said, between 22:35, July 7, and 01:31, July 8, you made five edits to the article (four of which can certainly count as reverts). Less than twelve hours later, you made more two reverts. Thus, Justin made a total of six reverts in twenty-four hours. I'm not sure what you're contesting there. -- tariqabjotu 16:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The point I'm trying to make, is that I was not edit warring. Though I can appreciate it looking from the outside it may have appeared so. The earlier edits you referred to had the hallmark of the start of an edit war, it ended when I self-reverted to the previous consensus. The two other editors (Red Hat and John) involved were happy that the article had returned to the consensus view point. Reading WP:3RR a self-revert is acceptable I believe.
Please also note that I didn't in fact make the changes that sparked it off and if you refer to the discussion in the talk page I essentially tried to keep things to a consensus. So rather than edit warring, my actions were to cool things off and prevent an edit war. I did try to email you explaining this, as I have not had a reply I presume you didn't see it?
I think there was a lot of confusion caused when I inadvertently posted the wrong URL in a citation link. Probably compounded by the fact I was relatively new and I was trying to do the right thing. Also the intervention by Rebelguys2 was not done in a constructive manner and I did not find it helpful.
Also I think if you look at the edit history, I was not the only editor to make that many edits but I was the only one blocked. I did think that was unfair and unjust, since wiki policy is supposed to apply equally. Justin A Kuntz 17:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing your point. I'm not seeing the self-reverts and "my actions were to cool things off and prevent an edit war" is not a valid defense. -- tariqabjotu 18:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm asking you to consider the complete picture, to consider that my revert at 01:31, July 8, 2007 was actually a self-revert to the previous consensus. To consider that the other editors involved considered my actions were a self-revert e.g. quoting from Rebelguys2 talk page:
I had actually self reverted myself because I didn't at first realise that the previous edit by Mr Kuntz was also a self-revert, to a previous version that contained both "sides" and a [citation needed] tag. I would encourage you to revert yourself. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
As you yourself pointed out one does not have to make four reverts in twenty-four hours to be blocked for edit-warring. but WP:3RR is in fact a guideline for conduct. I'd have no problem with being blocked for breaking the rules, its just I don't believe I'm in fact guilty of edit warring.
I would also ask why the rules were not applied equally. Justin A Kuntz 21:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
An example of a self revert be:
  • Person A makes an edit.
  • Person B makes an edit.
  • Person A reverts back to his original version.
  • Person A reverts back to Person B's version (the version just prior to Person A's revert). <-- That's a self-revert.
Even if I were to consider one of your reverts a self-revert, that would still make five reverts in twenty-four hours. The reason I didn't block any of the other editors is that you were the primary editor warrior. -- tariqabjotu 02:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand your example but equally I think what I did stands as a self-revert, particularly as the others involved considered it a self-revert and were happy for things to go back to the consensus. I'm asking you to have a look at the discussion page and see how this unfolded. I'd also ask you to consider the conduct of some of the other people involved and ask yourself whether I was really the the primary editor warrior as you put it. Would you be able to do that please?
I also ask if you received my email on this? Justin A Kuntz 07:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Unindent.

Below is the complete summary of all the edits I made over the period, together with all the others. Noting the comments again I would ask who is the primary editor warrior as you put it? Note also that if you add them up Rebelguys2 had also breached WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL. With the exception of one tetchy comment in response to a rather rude posting by Rebelguys2 I was polite and civil throughout.

Regards, Justin A Kuntz 13:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Rebelguys2 reverts again. No attempt to discuss. When I went to post my explanation I'm blocked.

23:18, July 8, 2007 Rebelguys2 (36,834 bytes) (Reverted edits by Justin A Kuntz (talk) to last version by Rebelguys2) (undo)

I revert referring to the cite of the mirror in the discussion page. 2nd revert.

22:39, July 8, 2007 Justin A Kuntz (37,381 bytes) (Revert. Please take this to discussion before editing. Cite of mirror was to indicate that someone removed relevant reference in a previous edit,.) (undo)

He reverts again without responding to my request to take it to talk first. I misunderstood the comment about the wiki mirror as I’d included that URL in the talk page. There is also a series of comments in the talk page that are quite aggressive, that didn’t really help and were certainly not constructive or helpful. Language in the edit summary is also less than civil.

22:10, July 8, 2007 Rebelguys2 (36,834 bytes) (rv, please see WP:V and WP:RS. your citation of a wikipedia mirror as a source is completely absurd. do not revert.) (undo)

I revert asking politely for this to be taken to talk first as this is a controversial topic. There is a request to discuss any proposed change there first. My first revert following my earlier self-revert. By the way this is nearly 24 hrs later not 12.

21:45, July 8, 2007 Justin A Kuntz (37,381 bytes) (Reverted to previous consensus - presenting both views. Please take this to Discussion before editing controversial topics.) (undo)

Rebelguys2 makes a series of edits without discussing proposed changes in the talk page. Red Hat places a note in the talk pages explaining my last revision was a self-revert he agreed with and suggests Rebelguys2 also reverts as the edit overturns the consensus text. John had also responded that it was OK.

20:00, July 8, 2007 Rebelguys2 (36,834 bytes) (uncited weasel wording) (undo) 19:54, July 8, 2007 Rebelguys2 (36,969 bytes) (rm this paragraph -- two [citation needed] tags, one [who?] tag, and a citation of a Wikipedia mirror is just ridiculous) (undo) 19:53, July 8, 2007 Rebelguys2 (37,396 bytes) (Reverted edits by Rebelguys2 (talk) to last version by John) (undo) 19:18, July 8, 2007 Rebelguys2 (36,878 bytes) (neither revision is sourced particularly well, but the new language is simply too weasel worded; i think red hat of pat reverted himself as he was approaching too many reverts) (undo)

John adds a citation request.

15:13, July 8, 2007 John (37,396 bytes) (→Name - tags) (undo)

Red Hat reverts on realising what I’d done. Peace reigns.

01:37, July 8, 2007 The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (37,381 bytes) (Undid revision 143206056 by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (talk) - self rv) (undo)

Red Hat reverts, not realising my last revision was a self-revert.

01:35, July 8, 2007 The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (36,878 bytes) (rv - you've got to be kidding - the section talking about offence is a Wikipedia mirror) (undo)

I self-revert back to a version that contains both sides, having found a mirror that referred to a previous version. This contains the reference that was the original source of the view that the Islanders view the term Malvinas offensive, I tried to put the reference back but screw up by accidentally placing the URL for the mirror instead. I also placed a comment in the talk pages. Note John’s comments agreeing with my change.

01:31, July 8, 2007 Justin A Kuntz (37,381 bytes) (undo)

Red Hat reverts pointing me to WP:V, I take the time to read it first.

00:39, July 8, 2007 The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (36,878 bytes) (please read WP:V before reverting this again. TALK PAGES ARE NOT REFERENCES, and the reference you provided is not suitable.) (undo)

I revert pointing out that there is a supporting reference in the talk pages, ref email from FIG official. 2nd revert.

00:37, July 8, 2007 Justin A Kuntz (37,110 bytes) (Revert to prior established fact. Supporting argument with reference reproduced in Discussion.) (undo)

Red Hat Reverts

00:22, July 8, 2007 The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (36,878 bytes) (Undid revision 143181412 by Justin A Kuntz (talk) - talk pages do not constitute refs, I'm afraid. Provide a source!) (undo)

I revert to what I believe was consensus, I point to the talk page 1st revert

22:58, July 7, 2007 Justin A Kuntz (37,110 bytes) (Revert to prior established fact. Talk Pages continue email from FI Government official confirming term is considered offensive.) (undo)

Rebelguys2 reverts my edit 5 minutes later.

22:45, July 7, 2007 Rebelguys2 (36,878 bytes) (rv - no, we need reliable outside sources, not vague references to Wikipedia talk pages!) (undo)

By now I’ve logged in and added an edit summary, accidentally revert John’s changes as I was adding an edit summary whilst John made changes. That would be 1 revert if you’re being pedantic but it was accidental so I’d suggest it isn’t counted.

22:40, July 7, 2007 Justin A Kuntz (37,110 bytes) (Sorry forgot to log in. Reference to offensive use of term Malvinas in Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive2) (undo)

In the mean time, John reverts my edit

22:38, July 7, 2007 John (36,878 bytes) (npov, rem unreferenced statement about offence) (undo)

My first edit, I’d forgotten to log in

22:35, July 7, 2007 81.104.36.101 (Talk) (37,110 bytes) (→Name) (undo)

The edit at 22:40, July 7, was a revert. Making a revert so you can put an edit summary is not a reasonable excuse. The edit at 22:58, July 7, was a revert -- that's two. As you said, the edit at 00:37, July 8, was a revert -- that's three. For your 01:31, July 8, revert you say "I self-revert back to a version that contains both sides". That's not what a self-revert is; as I tried to explain earlier, a self-revert is a revert of your own (just-preceding) edit. You reverted over someone else's edit, so it is not a self-revert. So, that's four. You mention that 21:45, July 8, happened within twenty-four hours, not twelve. Okay fine, but it's still within twenty-four hours. That's five. I don't know how you can say the revert at 22:39, July 8, is the second revert even by your counting. By my counting, that makes six. QED, the block was more than justified. -- tariqabjotu 15:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Carom 18:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Kirill 17:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sea Eagle-armed Sea Harriers in the Falklands War

Hi Justin A Kuntz. I'm sorry, but I've lost track of things, why should you find a Sea Harrier source? It was the Splendid business I was thinking about.
Well, your [1] source revealed something new: <<The only good thing to come out of it, as related by John Farley, was that the Argentineans found the missile control panel in the wreckage, and thought "Christ, they’ve got Sea Eagle operational already ! " - thus keeping their ships in port.>> As Nick Taylor's XZ450 Sea Harrier was taken from the Sea Eagle test programme, it still had the control panel, and was the first wreckage examined by the Argentines. If the Argentine Navy thought that the Sea Eagles were operational, it could have been the last straw which broke the admirals fighting will. Unfortunately, the source is evaporating - and it could be an urban legend. I don't know how to deal with removed home pages. --Necessary Evil 19:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah because I referred to all of the available Sea Harriers heading south. That was the only Sea Eagle capable aircraft in the inventory at the time. They were still in the process of clearing Sea Eagle from the aircraft. It isn't an urban legend but its the kind of small detail that usually doesn't make it to open press. I have other sources but they would be WP:OR. Sea Eagle was never deployed. I've lost the Splendid reference unfortunately. Justin A Kuntz 20:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Damn, the Sea Eagle control panel could have been a funny information. There is also one regarding British passwords being Jimmy [2], because Spanish-speaking people pronounced it Himmy.--Necessary Evil 21:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I've come across that before, 3 Para used in on Mount Longdon. I think its in Graham Bound's book. Justin A Kuntz 21:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands

The Spaniards apparently left the Falklands on February 13th, 1811; see my sourced response on the article's talk page. Best, Apcbg 17:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Alex and the Islands

Well, while I admire your tenacity, perhaps continuing this constant (and very pointless) back and forth with Alex on a medcab page merely allows him to draw you into possibly making a mistake or an inconsistency that he can leap upon? I am starting to suspect he has no real desire for mediation, rather he wants someone to say he is right, and I am sure if the mediation committee decided, as we did, that this is something that belongs within a context, this would not be the end. I would suggest simply re-asserting your points when he tries to bait you, rather than responding to his. It may not be overly constructive, but neither is what is occuring now. Narson 15:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I put up a single statement, as my name got mentioned by a couple of people (And his bandying about claims about 'opposing editors' without specifically limiting his comments to you two made it seem like he was widening his 'thrust'), clarified where I stand and made it clear I would not be baited into further comment there. Which was pretty hard. I do enjoy a good debate. That was just not a good debate. It was one sided barracking. Narson 18:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was a good analogy. It really is useless. I've tried my best to try and get a compromise wording through. Alex just doesn't seem to budge because he refuses to accept that articles that have branched off are articles in their own right. Narson 16:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if it sounded harsh on the Falkland Islands talk page. It was just getting so far away from 'useful'. Alex doesn't seem to grasp some tenants of Wikipedia and has formulated his own ideas of how things /should/ be. I feel for the guy but I fear this is going to end up as some 'great crusade' on his part and the less you guys argue on talk pages, the less he has to bring up at the inevitable admin intervention. Believe me, the temptation to point out flaws in Alex's arguments are overwhelming. Narson 14:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This appears to totally have died off. I wonder if it will stay that way? Narson 16:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed this when I checked his user contribs after leaving the message. Eagle appears to have ignored it though. Alex's account is single purpose at the moment, maybe it will encourage him to branch out so he will be exposed to more wiki principles. Narson 19:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

History of the Falkland Islands

Dear Justin, here follow some sourced (Argentine) points on the Rivero affair: According to Admiral Laurio Destéfani, “Attempts have been made to create a legend of courageous gauchos who attacked and defeated the British, but this is just imagination”, with the true story of what happened being “stated in 42 documents published by the National Academy of History”. As for the subsequent developments, Destéfani maintains that “Rivero and three other men were sent to England, but there the court ruled they could not be tried because the Malvinas had not been incorporated yet to the British Empire”. That incorporation happened in 1841 with the appointment of the first Lieutenant Governor, Richard Moody who was instructed by Lord John Russell: “... immediately after your arrival you have to find the means to administer law and justice within the colony. In a proclamation you’ll notify the inhabitants of the Falklands that the law of England is in effect in the islands; you’ll make sure this is complied with in any part of the islands where it is possible to find competent people to perform the offices of judges or magistrates”.[1] Hope this helps.

  1. ^ Laurio H. Destéfani, The Malvinas, the South Georgias and the South Sandwich Islands, the conflict with Britain, Buenos Aires, 1982

Apcbg 18:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Better late than never?

I would appreciate your feedback as to whether we're veering into "opinion" territory and whether the proposed edit is in line with wiki guidelines. Thanks in anticipation. Justin A Kuntz 17:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC) [3]

I have not been terribly active in the last few weeks. I've looked at the version you linked, and the current version of the section, and some of the talk page. To be honest I have a bit of trouble figuring out from the talk page what has happened and what still is in dispute, if anything. I should also say that in the end I'm not all that knowledgeable about the war.

My opinion is you're not too far into opinion territory, as the reference you're worried about seems to serve to establish that the Sun was condemned for being jingoistic. It sounds like there might be a question whether failing to be pro-British in the manner of the Sun is actually "neutral", but that can be lightly reworded if it's really an issue. So at least on the "factoid level" it seems to be fine. Of course, we should ask whether the collection of factoids hangs together to present a good picture, and whether it is necessary to reference the Guardian's piece or if sufficient support can be found elsewhere. This will require judgement, but you seem to be doing alright.

I hope you are not finding things too frustrating. Cheers, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, thats fine. The reason for my initial concern was that another editor wanted to make an entirely one sided edit based on the Guardian article alone. When I reverted that edit I was accused of "sledge hammer" editing and he refused to listen to concerns. In the end I decided to just ignore his comments and edit the article for balance.
Achieving balance seems to be difficult I notice but I like a challenge. Justin talk 15:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

So glad you've finally got something on your userpage, now ur name doesn't show up in red on my watchlist (I watch the Falklands article) anymore, which automatically sets of the alarm bells for Anti-Vandal patrol ;) Ryan4314 11:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL it's no biggy, certainly not enough to warrant messaging you, but it probably made u stand out in my mind more. Ryan4314 11:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, u seem to know a lot about the Falklands War. I was looking at the casualty source [4] for the Royal Navy, is this right? I thought Atlantic Conveyor had 12 casualties and how did Hermes and Invincible suffer casualties? (I was under the impression Argentine planes got nowhere near them?) Also do u know where I can find the names of all ships lost? cheers mate Ryan4314 11:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
OIC thanks for the info. Also in the Falklands War article, in the black buck raids bit, the propagandas about moving the mirage 3's is mentioned twice, just thought you'd wanna know. Ryan4314 12:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
OIC, I gather it's the subject of some debate??? Ryan4314 12:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
That's very interesting, I didn't realize the Argentinians were trying to extend Stanley runway, and your right it was a remarkable achievement. In carrying out that huge logistical nightmare, using Britain's much admired ex-nuclear deterrent, must've been a huge morale boost. Ryan4314 22:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I checked the link you gave me, when you say right-wing Argentinians, does that mean Argentines who are for taking the back the Malvines by military force? And the solider who was involved in the coup, was that a coup in Galtieri's Junta or in the democracy after the war?

Surely the Mirage's weren't the only reason that mainland Argentina wasn't attacked was it? It would've been totally illegal for Britain to attack Argentina for a start, and would've also of brought the whole of South America (including the USA) into the war (against them) under the "Rio Pact" right? Britain could get away with fighting on the Falklands, as it was classed as an invasion of British overseas territory, but I don't think they'd have the bottle to attack mainland Argentina. I know they sent the SAS over, but that sort of thing is different, and even then the British high command wimped out and told them to abort the mission halfway through right? Ryan4314 00:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, something's bugging me. I'm sure I've read somewhere that one of the roles of the British's Sea King helicopters was to act as a decoy for Exocet missles. And that this was done by having them hover above the Destroyer ships, creating a heat signature to lure the missiles off course (in particular this was what Prince Andrew did). Is this true? I think I read it on Wikipedia but can't seem to find it now. Ryan4314 09:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I think I understand, although a helpful diagram would be nice lol! And ur absolutely I'm sure it takes mucho cojones! Ryan4314 10:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't suppose you know how many Exocets Argentina had during the war? I've heard it was 5 (of airborne variety I suppose) on TV, but then I just read on the article that Iraq had like 200 at one point! How expensive are these things lol? Ryan4314 13:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow! no wonder they're so poor in Iraq now, if they bought 200 of the things! What I find odd is that of the 5 the Argentines had (presuming they fired them all) they sunk 2 ships, meaning a 40% success rate. If the Iraqis pulled that off, they would've sunk like 80 Iranian ships! It's just a thought...
Seeming as u seem to know all their is about the Falklands war, I was wondering if you know what type of rifle the British and Argentine general infantry used during the conflict? I have know idea what the Argentines used, and all I know is the British used some sort of Armalite... Ryan4314 23:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Hiya mate, I've got another question sorry, I recently saw a Spanish documentary about the Falklands war. It said something something about Argentine troops starving, is this true? Ryan4314 12:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) OMG I never knew, Is that in the article? It should be, I would say I've researched the Falklands a great deal and I didn't know that! Ryan4314 12:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

We should try and put it in, I'll support you. People should know, it's very fundamental when contemplating Argentine's surrender. I looked up Miguel Savage, but I couldn't find any pics of captured Argentine officers, could you direct me to some? I'm gonna start looking for sources for the starvation thing. Ryan4314 13:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi mate, there's something that's been bothering me, on the British ground forces in the Falklands War article a user called King nothing made an edit, over a year ago, saying that the British used the M16A1 and M203. You told me that the Arctic and Mountain Warfare Cadre at Top Malo used M16's, do u know where I might find a source for this please. In particular it's the M203 bit that bothers me. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yea I know it's the underslung grenade launcher. Thanks for the link, it's really informative. And as for where I got the idea that the MAWC used M16's, I don't know maybe I got it here! (meant in good spirits!) ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Jewett

Justin, he did not announce "to the sealers present that they were there illegally"; rather the opposite, his proclamation pleaded assistance to their industry. Apcbg 20:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The text of the proclamation communicated by Jewett to the local British and American sealers (reportedly 50 ships in the bay, must be some 1,000 people!) can be found here. Unfortunately I don't have the time to contribute more these days, and you are doing a better job at it anyway. Best, Apcbg 07:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Please find in the 'Sovereignty of the FI' a sourced English version of Jewett's proclamation. Apcbg 06:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Falklands War press coverage

The Sun supported the territorial integrity of the UK. That's patriotism. The Gotcha headline was considered a bad decision by the editor after the fact, when further information over how much danger it had posed at the time of the sinking came out. It was certainly crass, but at least it wasn't Guardian fiddling with foresight. Nimmo 09:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a discussion without substantive points. I think you're well aware of which adjectives I would prefer, as I prefer the adjective most appropriate to describe the Sun's consideration of their own, British interests, 'patriotic'. Nimmo 09:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to post on my talk page but please don't retrospectively change what you wrote. I've put it back. Justin talk

Sorry, my bad, decided something substanstive would be appreciated. Nimmo 12:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You ever find it odd Justin, we get attacked from the left for being pro British yet constantly defend 'Anti British' edits. What a complex life we lead! Narson 14:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The argentine icebreaker

Wow, some of the stuff you added to the Falkland articles is pretty darn useful. I just added more information on the 2004 incident to the ship's page (And found a wonderful site that has copies of most parliamentary correspondance in doing so). Narson 11:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that article, and wow, it looks damn near complete and pretty informative. certainly not something I would have cared enough about to write a whole article on :) It should, hopefully, provide some kind of reference to put an end to the 1833 expulsion myth once and for all. Narson 12:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Echo and the Falklands

Think we can get away with deleting the Wikiprojects:Echo thing on the Falkland War? I just looked at that article's translation and I was down right offended with the idea that article was better than the one on here. The equivalent would be if be wallpapered 'The Argies, with their small angry men complex, initiated an unprovoked war of agression' all over the article, which would, obviously, be totally incorrect factually as well as unacceptable. Hrm. I appear to be in a confrontational mood today. Time to take a break from wikiediting maybe. Narson 10:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I acctually used a google translation of the page: [5] Narson 12:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
That Echo thing always annoys me as it implies their article is better. Grr. Oh well. I have other things to poke at. You seen that Amritsar Massacre is acctually a re-direct to its indian name that I've never even heard of, let alone read in any history book. I swear, its amazing how people see any use of the common name as 'POV' if that common name is the British name, the whole British Isles debacle being an example. Narson 12:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Heh. Nice job with the archiving. Have 10 cookies. Narson 12:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Latest vandalism

That made me chuckle, I must admit. A German vandalising a page about a war between Brits and Argentines in order to moan about Americans. It is international waltz! Narson 22:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: History of the Falkland Islands edit

Hi, looking at the diff, I did not change the name of the ship. There is a known bug in AWB that means that cancelled corrections stay in the edit summary. Please check the diff in future. Thanks Rjwilmsi 09:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Heroína

Justin, I see that you are improving texts related to Jewett's visit to the Falklands. While it's true that Jewett had a privateer license issued by Buenos Aires, during his raid of European waters he captured a Portuguese ship (the Carlota) and took it in his Falklands leg where she sunk during a storm (source). The point is, Jewett's license was valid for Spanish ships not Portuguese. The United Provinces were not at war with Portugal, so Jewett's was an act of piracy (not privateering) by any standards. According to "United States Involvement in the Falkland Islands Crisis of 1831-1833" by Craig Evan Klafter, Journal of the Early Republic, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Winter, 1984), pp. 395-420, Jewett was captured in 1822 onboard the Heroina off Gibraltar, brought to Lisbon and convicted of piracy. Apcbg 15:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime I searched a little more too, finding the same source as well as another one; according to the latter Jewett went to Buenos Aires; gives interesting chronology of the Heroina's actions after the Falklands, including the capture of yet another Portuguese ship! Enough reason for the Portuguese to capture the Heroina and sentence its crew for piracy. The explanation in Heroina that "This reflects the fact that the Portugese government, as most European governments at the time, had not yet recognised the United Provinces of the River Plate as an independent and legitimate state." is ridiculous. Apcbg 20:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. Just noticed that you seem to have found the same source too. Best, Apcbg 20:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
You wrote: "The declaration he issued has been lost to history but Weddell reports the letter he received from Jewett etc." I doubt if I could recall any sources claiming the existence of such a lost declaration, nor does the text of the letter indicate there was one. The letter mentions no separate declaration, and asks Weddell to forward to other sealers Jewett's invitation not declaration. Apcbg 07:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Fheroina.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 16:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Soledad

I doubt if merging that article with 'Port Louis' would be a good idea. The article is not about the geographical location but about the settlement, and those are two different settlements: different people, different sovereignty, and different names. Puerto Soledad is strictly history while Port Louis exists even today. It would be confusing to inquire for Puerto Soledad only to be redirected to Port Louis. Same like (never mind the proportion) asking for 'Constantinople' and getting redirected to 'Istanbul' -- which fortunately doesn't happen as there are two distinct articles for those two cities, which also share one and the same geographical location. Apcbg 17:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Soledad existed April 1, 1767 - February 13, 1811. Port Louis exists 1828 - present. What "same time period"? Apcbg 20:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Articles are about covering topics not periods. The 'Istanbul' article also covers the entire period including that of Constantinople, so what. There were three different settlements (each of them deserving an article of its own, with references to the others too) with completely different populations: Port Saint Louis, Puerto Soledad, and Port Louis; while Puerto Luis, Ansons Harbour and Port Louis are one and the same settlement with continuity in occupation. (By the way, Puerto Soledad existed 44 years with 21 governors -- Port Louis lasted 15 years (in 1845 its residents moved to Stanley leaving a farm behind) with 8 governors, so there would be the question of the name of a possible merged article; the Spanish Wikipedia presently has one article titled 'Puerto Soledad' not 'Puerto Luis'.) Anyway, feel free to merge or whatever.
As for discussing in the article's talk page, I somehow have the feeling that would be unproductive, judging from some recent proposals and edits like inserting 'See also: English people, Gauchos, Demographics of Gibraltar, Spanish people, Argentinian people, and Chilean people' in the 'Origins' article or picture 'The key locations in the Task Force's logistics chain' in the 'History of SGSSI' article. Okay, (1) this is an open project and anyone may edit; and (2) valuing my time I'd rather invest it in contributing new content than corrections. I made my point this time but that's rather the exception. Apcbg 21:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits in those two articles. Apcbg 09:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Generations

Quite possible, but it would need some thorough research in the Falkland Government Archive, and islanders delving deeper into their family history. The 19th century records are incomplete (e.g. it is known that not all marriages were made formal), and in some instances inconsistent. In particular, it would be interesting to find out more about the later life of Carmelita's three sons (José Simon, Manuel Coronel Jr. and Richard Penny Jr.), their possible descendants etc. What is known for certain though is that some ninth generation Falklanders are expected in a year or so :-) Apcbg 19:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Heads up

Yeah, can't say I'm overly impressed, but then I've butted heads with quite a few Finnish wikipedians recently. Oh well :) Though you might want to cool off a bit Justin, between this Mac guy and the other guy, you are starting to get a tad snappy and bitey, you don't want to get yourself in trouble simply for sticking up for concensus. Narson (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

And now I go to cry. God, this has been a crappy year for sports :p Narson (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Scottish eh? Well, you guys didn't qualify either and you /did/ lose McRae this year. See? Bad year. Narson (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Meh, we arn't even the best at hooliganism anymore. Italians, Russians and the Polish have us beaten hands down. Oh well, only 4 months or so to the next Formula One championship. Narson (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk to me

On retiring

I'm sorry you feel that way - it certainly wasn't my intent to make you retire. Although I suspect Gaba_p is the root cause of many of the issues it takes two to edit-war etc. I also thought a topic ban was the least offensive action because as things were going you were both heading for a block or a trip to arbcom, which would have been a lot of hassle and likely led to a similar result. A topic ban on the other hand would still allow you to edit wikipedia. If you ever want to return let me know, using an unlogged in IP if need be, and I'll remove the wikibreak enforcer. Dpmuk (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

  • WCM, I concur with Dpmuk on this. Don't become a fanatic, as I suspect that GP has become over the years, there is no need to feed off his energy and letting him feed off yours. All it takes is just another spark and the EW would go kaboom! Just take a break like I told you to and come back when you are more clearer in the mind and energised in the body, yeah? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 20:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban: Falkland Islands

Hello. This is to inform you that, by community consensus, Gaba p (talk · contribs) and you are both indefinitely topic-banned (see WP:TBAN) from everything related to the Falkland Islands.

This sanction can be appealed to the community at WP:AN, or to the Arbitration Committee. Experience shows that the chances of any appeal are greatly increased if the appellant can show a lengthy period of compliance with the ban and of conflict-free editing in other topic areas.  Sandstein  17:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

A topic ban for subjects concerning the sovereignty dispute of the Falkland Islands plus an interaction ban (between Gaba and Wee) would have been sufficient. To ban WCM from all Falkland Islands topics is excessive.--MarshalN20 | Talk 18:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with MarshalN20. Where is the provocation for this additional punishment? I do not see any further editing by either editor. Am I missing something? Mugginsx (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Dpmuk’s flawed ban proposal is based on the taken-out-of-the-blue presumption that there is a need for some new consensus (“...they have made discussion to reach a consensus almost impossible ...”, “...it's impossible to reach a consensus on these issues while these two editors are involved and so propose a topic ban ...”) aimed at altering the existing stable, long-time consensus resulting from extensive past discussions involving a great number of editors – a consensus that has provided for reasonably NPOV Falklands related articles. The idea of removing participants in order to pave the way towards infringing this existing neutrality is rather unfortunate indeed. Apcbg (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
As a comment as from an administrator's perspective (but without my admin hat on, if you get the drift), it's pretty hard to enforce highly specific topic bans, and they're open to gaming (not that I'm suggesting that WCM would do this), and especially gaming by other editors targeting the topic banned editor. As an example, if WCM was to be topic banned from 'subjects concerning the sovereignty dispute of the Falkland Islands', would he be violating this by working on the RAF Mount Pleasant or ARA Hércules (B-52) articles? Neither has a direct connection to the sovereignty dispute of the Falkland Islands, but both the base and the ship are highly relevant to any potential military confrontation involving the Falklands' sovereignty and the day-to-day balance of military power in the region. Similarly, if he was to work on articles on the Falklands' economy he could be accused of somehow biasing these to support the POV that the islanders are better off under British sovereignty that they would be under Argentine, and so on. Such accusations are sadly common in regards to such topic bans where nationalism is a factor in the underlying dispute (for instance, the endless drama among some of the editors who work on articles concerning Eastern Europe or the Israeli-Palestinian dispute). I certainly hope that WCM returns to editing, and I'd note that getting topic bans lifted is pretty easy - all you need to do is stick to the ban, edit productively in other areas for a few months, and then ask for it to be lifted while making a commitment to avoid problematic behaviour (for instance, a voluntary 0 or 1 revert rule). Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Another route to having topic bans eventually lifted is to agree to have a mentor for a period, and I'd be pleased to perform such a role if you're ever interested. Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Nick, thank you for the response. Given the history of the dispute between Gaba and WCM, I still consider a specific topic ban on sovereignty dispute matters would have been enough to quell the dispute.
As can be seen in the Falkland Islands article (section on Sovereignty Dispute) and my sandbox (see User:MarshalN20/sandbox), it is easier to work with editors on indirect topics to reach a consensus.
Moreover, WCM's edit history shows that he is primarily interested in topics about the Falkland Islands. That's his area of expertise, his intellectual cradle, and cutting him from that essentially leaves him at nothing (and leaves Wikipedia at a loss from an editor who can expand articles on the Falkland Islands).
That being said, I understand your point about the tricky nature of topic bans. I think mentorship works better than bans in cases such as this one.
Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | Talk 21:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Nick-D pretty much hit the nail on the head as to the reason I asked for a complete topic ban, and to be honest I don't think it's likely that WCM actions in indirectly related topics that would be the problem, rather it would be other editors reaction to them. As has also been pointed out topic bans don't have to last for ever and I was very much looking at this as a way of calming things down.
As to Apcbg's comments I have two points to make. Firstly, if their was previous consensus then people would have been best served pointing to the discussion where that consensus was formed, as this would carry significant weight in any discussion, yet I can not remember seeing any such link. Secondly, a version being stable carries some, but not a lot of, weight in my opinion as there have been some pretty atrocious articles out there (including outright hoaxes) that have been stable for a long time and which have eventually been tidied up either due to more information or just more editors noticing the article. Of course there's also the point that consensus can change. For all these reasons, unless a discussion was recent, it is often desirable to form a new consensus if someone challenges something although of course it's also allowable to point to an old consensus and use that as a basis for forming a new consensus. If the old consensus is strong enough it may even be accepted as is. Dpmuk (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • FYI, WCM is not coming back here after this, he has had it with Gaba & his gang of meatpuppets constantly tag-teaming and stalking him on WP. In his own words: "SysOp Dpmuk has done me in without even consulting the other Admins before making a unilateral decision to proceed with the TBan. Also, he is extremely fed-up by the ludicrious bureaucracy here and would like remind the Admins to take a closer look at the way that Gaba & his gang has continually muddied the water whenever issues between them pops up on AN/ANI. Note that he has left the building, password scrambled. And thanks for all the fish! (PS: Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger here.) --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 06:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
That's unfair. It was hardly a unilateral decision. It was discussed and agreed upon at AN as WCM well knows as he commented there. I'll also note that I was not the one that closed that discussion or concluded that there was consensus for a topic ban - that would have been inappropriate as I started the discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 06:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wee_Curry_Monster/Archive_1&oldid=1143538266"