User talk:Wee Curry Monster: Difference between revisions

Home     E-mail

——————————————— Wee Curry Monster's Talk Page ——————————————— Wee Curry Monster is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon. Please note that it is 5:45 AM (GMT), where I live I will normally reply to your message on your talk page but will frequently reply here if it is warranted. To be honest, the way I respond is chaotic and haphazard, don't be offended if I forget. For information, I have removed all user pages from my watchlist and the drama boards of WP:ANI and WP:AN, I am not interested in that nonsense. One of my pet hates is the drive by tagger. People whose sole contribution to wikipedia is adding multiple {{cn}} tags to articles but never getting off their lazy backsides to find citations themselves. One aspect of this that is particularly irritating is they're often added in the middle of a sentence ignoring the existing citation, which 99% of the time corroborates the information. If you remove unneeded tags, provide an edit summary to that effect, their usual response is to edit war a tag back pompously spouting off about policy. If you're one of these people coming here to give me a lecture because I removed your tag, well, I strongly suggest you don't. I recommend WP:SOFIXIT ie get off your lazy backside and do the donkey work yourself instead of leaving it to others. I realise this is personal opinion but I consider the only use for tags is A) as a personal reminder to go back and fix something, B) to tag something you're concerned about, intuitively feel is correct but you can't find a cite or finally C) you've tried to find a cite, can't corroborate information but someone is edit warring challenged material back into an article. Do any of those and its thumbs up from me! Please post new messages at the bottom of this page and don't forget to give your message a heading. Remember to sign using the four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. Please be civil, if you fail to be civil I will simply ignore you. As a Glaswegian (born, bred and proud of it) I speak directly and don't pussy foot around. Whilst I'm direct, I do try to be polite. I have observed there are far too many editors on Wikipedia who take offence at comments I and others make. Usually this is because they read into a comment, a totally unintended meaning. Remember text is a crap medium for conveying nuance. What you interpret as sarcasm in all probability was a light hearted or jocular remark. Textual communication is further complicated by cultural differences in the way English is used. For example: An American describing something as quite nice will mean it as a compliment, whereas a Brit is more than likely saying it is crap. If you find yourself here after taking offence at something I've written, breathe, count to ten and assume good faith before posting. If I've deleted your message, basically that means I've read it and nothing else. I do tend to delete what I regard as niff naff and trivia. Repeatedly adding the same message to my talk page will simply piss me off and more than likely just be deleted. Refer to WP:3RR, I can delete comments on my own talk page if I like but you don't get to badger me. Per WP:UP#CMT I am perfectly within my rights to remove comments. If you're asked not to comment here then please respect that and don't. There are a number of friendly talk page stalkers, who have my permission to remove comments that are unwelcome. If they do so, please respect my wishes and do not revert. I do not claim to be infallible, occasionally I'll revert something in error. I've also noticed a tendency when editing on my tablet to occasionally hit Rollback by accident. If you've spotted what you think is a strange edit of mine, accidental rollback is usually the answer. Feel free to point it out to me but if its rollback I would suggest you just revert; I don't mind people fixing my screw ups. If you're here because of the revert of a reasonable edit, then may I suggest you first of all ask yourself did you provide an informative edit summary or properly source the edit I reverted. You will find a civil comment will receive a reply (and most likely an apology if warranted). User:Antandrus some time ago wrote an excellent essay entitled observations on Wikipedia behavior. I suggest it as recommended reading to everyone. I used to do a lot of work on recent changes patrolling to stop wikifiddling, vandalism and partisan changes to the articles on my watchlist. I don't tend to do that much these days but long ago came to the conclusion that most people who post such crap do so because they think Wikipedia exists to right great wrongs or set the world to rights. Sorry but, newsflash, it doesn't; its an encyclopedia nothing more. A bed rock policy of Wikipedia is to present a neutral point of view. Contrary to popular opinion this does not mean we have to represent ALL views. Rather wikipedia represents the predominant views in the literature, this doesn't mean that we represent fringe material with undue prominence. The more advanced POV pushers decide after reading a bit of policy that sourcing makes their edits bulletproof. Wrong again. Sources have to be reliable, so the conspiracy website or the book by a crank doesn't mean your edit is sacrosanct. If you've come to wikipedia because you're convinced J. Edgar Hoover was the second gunman on the grassy knoll please jog on. I've pointed you to relevant policy about why your edit was removed in what was intended to be a humorous manner, so please don't bug me any further. The essay WP:DICK is often trotted out on wikipedia, I try not to refer it to myself anymore. Why? It's my observation that most editors who refer to that essay are complete and utter dicks themselves. It's a sad fact that there are still a lot of arseholes editing wikipedia, it's not worth getting into a spat with them as they're determined they will have the last word and thereby "win" the discussion. Sometimes, best thing is to just walk away and as my grannie used to say "let the baby have it's chocolate". If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia or frequently asked questions. If you need editing help, head here.

Archives     Write

Have a nice day !

Running with scissors is too dangerous for Wikipedia!

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm gagged, I cannot comment. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

--Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	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)[reply]

	The Minor barnstar
	And for the minor things you've helped me with, thanks~! Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

	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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you kindly for all the work you put in here. Finally got a result! Nightw 04:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Quasihuman | Talk 20:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"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.[6] I don't have the intention of being belligerent.

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

• Brother, take it easy and let it go. See also WP:Don't-give-a-fuckism#Wikipedia and not giving a fuck. 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Hello, Wee Curry Monster. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wee Curry Monster. You have new messages at Mugginsx's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• I'm like flabberghasted~! Those melon famers, they never shut their front door~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 20:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

bifan nas fhaide!

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

Hello, Wee Curry Monster. You have new messages at Mugginsx's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Wee Curry Monster. You have new messages at Mugginsx's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Wee Curry Monster. You have new messages at Mugginsx's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• Supreme facepalm of destiny... 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)[reply]

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

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! Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wee Curry Monster. You have new messages at Mugginsx's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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)[reply]

Oops! worded it incorrectly. Fixed it. Mugginsx (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

YGM!

Hello, Wee Curry Monster. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

thanks for the warning! will keep an eye out for this POV edits too. noclador (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Hello, Wee Curry Monster. You have new messages at Mugginsx's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Stand for what exactly? Wee Curry Monster talk 10:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That location maps are useful. Don't you get it? Xufanc (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

What the hell, man? Why did you revert me?—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was an accidental rollback, I immediately self-reverted. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you got in first. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Will do. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

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)[reply]

Hello, Wee Curry Monster. You have new messages at Causa sui's talk page.
Message added 23:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

causa sui (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[7] 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)[reply]

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. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, scratch that, someone's already given him a beating with the banhammer. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope everything is going well for you, and I hope you enjoy these holidays with friends and loved ones. -- Atama頭 01:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors – MHotY coming; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the Congolese Wars Review essay: Ian Rose goes to El Alamein Op-ed: DCI's call to revitalize WikiProject History

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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#Territorial_dispute_templates. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 18:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except its not a newbie but point noted.

Template:Newbie-biting Wee Curry Monster talk 15:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Love that template, definitely stealing it Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I created it. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice choice to strike the comment. Also, I've replied to your RfC question on my talk page. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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':

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.^[1][2]

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^[3][4][5] who is also widely quoted by UK and Argentine media for its analysis of Soviet involvement in the 1982 war in South Atlantic.^[6] Thanks 85.210.199.3 (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Do not, ever, come back to my talk page to teach me how Wikipedia works. Unlike you, I actually contribute to this Encyclopedia and I actually know about the subject being discussed there. Astynax is my partner and we have nine FAs behind our back, again, unlike you. If I copied his message and posted above mine is because I have the freedom to do such thing. The canvassing, the sock puppets, edit warring, everything you and your friend are doing are being watched, and that's why I haven't bothered to complain... yet. Learn your place and do not bother me again. --Lecen (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]