User talk:Wee Curry Monster/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Kelper term

Justine, we need to discuss this further. Previously there was one discussion where it was agreed that the islanders find it derogatory, which is understandable, but that doesn't mean at all that the Argentinians used it that way, as you keep insisting. Nor have you ever provided any references to back up the claim nor a reference which is inline with wikipedia's rules. And consensus to push a falsehood surely isn't what wikipedia is all about? Chuckarg33 (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure you are pushing a falshood because what you claim just isn't true, is not sourced or reference, and I've pointed this out several times before but you just push that POV. The day you have a reference you will then be able to make those claims. Chuckarg33 (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Buenos Aires

Hi Justin, I can't understand why you delete all my edit. It's new information, usefull about Investors in Bs. As. and it's my text, I didn't copy-paste information from other site and I put a link to the oficial page of buenos aires goverment. Please let me know. I want to put more about the economy of the city. Regards. Laura —Preceding unsigned comment added by La ponja (talk • contribs) 03:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Canberra PR.9

Hi Justin A Kuntz. If something is hidden to 2082 it might be the RAF Canberras from Chile. Feel free to delete them if it's bad Wiki policy. http://www.spyflight.co.uk/chile.htm contradicts RAF and Britain's Small Wars, but I don't know the credibility of spyflight.co.uk. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

Dear Justin, Just a note of thanks for your work to protect the improvements to the South Georgia article that we achieved consensus on. Michael Glass (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

An ungentlemanly act :)

Hi Justin. Even if Wikipedia has a commandment: "Be bold", I should have to discuss with you before reverting your edit on "Many Branch point", given our collaboration in the past. Frankly, I automatically though that the editon's author was Kernel Saunders, who some time ago expressed concerns about this article. My apologies for the confussion, and althought I keep my point of view on the infobox issue, I accept the majority view. Thank you.--Darius (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sir Tristram

To be frank, I am pretty ticked off that you made this into an ANI incident. If you had made your points to me first, I would have freely admitted (as I have done in the ANI thread) that I made a mistake and we could have moved on to important stuff. Issue resolved. – ukexpat (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I overreacted, but yes, peace. – ukexpat (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

My apologies - misunderstanding

I did not mean to suggest that the Indians played any part in the Falklands conflict; obviously that's not the case - I was simply replying to the previous editor's incorrect assertion that only the British used Sea Harriers at all. Since the article is primarily about Argentine air forces, my inclusion of "British" just before Sea Harrier serves to make the article more comprehensible. British is used throughout the article in a similar fashion and I believe it serves its purpose where I added it. My apologies for any misunderstanding regarding my edit comment -- Rydra Wong (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you made the original change, but you also used the term "English" instead of "British". The word "England" is used by Argentine POV pushers to allude to the United Kingdom's imperialist history. I still don't think that sentence needs the "British" prefix, as anyone who's worth their salt can tell that the SHARs belonged to UK. But I can't be arsed to argue over it, if u want it in, it's in. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No I can't see the need either, neither can I be arsed to argue over it. Justin talk 16:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Argentine Navy

Ciao! Hope now the page is no more screwed. I think the problem was that there are too many images, which could give problems in little resolution screens; now they are all in a row (I seem). Let me know... Ciao and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there's no need to have everything in the article with its Spanish version. If one is interested or needs that, can click and see it in the separate article. But let me know your opinion! Ciao and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

April 3

Any British sources will be welcome, Justin. This is the kind of collaboration we need in order to avoid future claims of PoV from 'both sides' :). Nice idea. I think that we must follow the pattern of our previous work on GADA 601. Probably I will be working on the April 3 article during the next weekend. Thanks.--Darius (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

South Georgia & ARA Guerrico

Hi Justin, thanks for your msg in my "Talk". Unfortunately I don't know of any first-hand accounts about that action, that's why my comment/question to Jor70. and i do recognize your effort to show neutrality. If I know something will touch base. Cheers, DPdH (talk) 11:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy towards other editors

Please stop being nasty, Justin. Calling other editors "obnoxious" is totally out of order. The rottweiler joke was meant in the same light that Richard Dawkins is called Darwin's rottweiler. I even put a smiley face after the comment. All I can say is that it was a joke: you can either accept that, or not, it's up to you, but I am telling you it was meant to be a lighthearted joke. As was the stuff about the refereeing - I just found it funny that in the same week we both turned to Narson and Pfainuk for comment. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry you feel that way... emoticons obviously are not what they used to be. Please desist from attacking me on the BE talk page though. Either it was a joke, like I said it was, which means your attacks are unwarranted, or it was not a joke, like you say, and in that case two wrongs do not make a right. I have not character assassinated you once during that debate, in the way that you have me. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

South Georgia article: scope and sources

Still working on the South Georgia article; I think it will take shape during this week. Just a couple of questions for you, Justin.

First of all, what should be the scope?. I intended the subject to be only the April 3 action, and just a brief intro dealing with the previous incident at Leith, Astiz, the 'workers', all that stuff you surely know well.

The other point is about sources. I found a quite unbiased account from the Argentine side, Contraalmirante Mayorga's No Vencidos. Despite the title, his narrative is far away from the usual jingoistic rethoric of some Argentine apologists, and exposes the Guerrico fiasco without excuses. There is another interesting Argentine book, Guerra bajo la Cruz del Sur, the most self-critical essay I know regarding Argentine armed forces. The author was a former member of the CANA (Argentine version of the Fleet Air Arm), but unfortunately he doesn't mention the Grytviken affair in depth. On the other hand, I think we should follow Freedman's official history and Britain Small Wars. These sources (specially Freedman) give us a realistic account from the British side.

Just to be frankly brutal, “Too Few, Too Far” is as partisan and unreliable as the page referring to the 'gallant' Guerrico: they claim a 100-1 ratio in favour of the Argentine troops (Freedman acknowledge not more than 50 troops), and the incredible (to say the least) statement that the British commander 'imposed his terms' during the capitulation. I wish to hear your opinion. Thanks.--Darius (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If I may, I think the article should start where Events leading to the Falklands War#Landings on South Georgia ends and up to the handle of the Royal Marines to the British embassy at Montevideo. Obviously there is a gap in the story there. .--Jor70 (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Justin, I totally agree with your latest proposal on my talk page. My only [minor] concern is that the version of Freedman-Gamba I have is the Spanish translation (made by V. Gamba herself, I guess), thus I will need your help regarding page numbers and quotes. I think that i will finish the work on Wednesday. A last bloody question (sorry if I'am a little fussy): What should be the right name? "Argentine invasion of South Georgia" or "Argentine occupation of Grytviken"? After all, the 'invasion' started by stealth on March 19, but the 'official' landing took place on April 3. Any suggestions?.--Darius (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop

Justin, there is no consensus for this wording. I am in the middle of posting my views on the talk page. Please do not revert this any further. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, and don't take this the wrong way, your frustrations appear to be getting the better of you in this debate. Everyone has shown that they are willing to modify the wording - so let's reach a wording that we are all comfortable with, OK? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been in this frame of mind you currently appear to be in many a time before so I empathise with you a great deal. It can make matters worse when you are fighting your corner alone and you feel ganged up on. But try to remember two things: it's just an encyclopaedia and in the long run we're all dead. If we all keep our cool, we'll get there in the end, and we'll have a stable article that everyone is happy with. None of that was meant to be patronising, it was just some friendly words, so I hope you take them at face value. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Type 42 Destroyer

I have reverted your reversion on Type 42 destroyer.

Where there is a difference in what several sources say, it is not original research to have footnotes saying what the differences between the sources is.

Where there are several sources that you would expect to be reliable, it is appropriate to record what the differences in sources are using inline citations - this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references.

The is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check whose aim is having facts in Wikipedia verified by multiple independent sources to make it the most authoritative source of information in the world. Reverting multiple references goes against this project.

The bulk of the text of the articles on modern RN warships have no citations whatsoever and frequent errors. Perhaps it would be better if you put your effort into improving verifiability by replacing unsourced material with material backed by proper inline citations.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Deutschland

Had you waited a few minutes you would have seen that I had fixed the link. I have found that saving while editing is necessary to avoid edit conflicts. Sometimes the save results in a link that I then fix once I have had time to check on the disambiguation page. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Showing my cards :)

Well, Justin, the first version of 1982 invasion of South Georgia is done. I decided that the scope must include Davidoff incident and the British reaction; without them, the narrative would be hopelessly incomplete. As usual, I'am open to criticism and, of course, feel free to edit it without remorse. Regards.--Darius (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Justin, happy to see that the article has "good press" :). Nevertheless, I acknowledge that the article "badly needs" a copy-editing, as a user claimed at the talk page. i would be grateful if you could performe it. Thanks again.--Darius (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Justin, I have a map of Grytviken with details of the invasion. This map comes from Mayorga's book. I can scan and send it via email to you. I will pass my e-adress to you later on the day.--Darius (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar Link

What was wrong with the Gibraltar link I posted? The link provided the locations of residential areas, which is valuable information. Inkan1969 (talk) 10:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I just went back to [1]. I looked, and I could not find anything that the website was selling. It does not appear to be a commercial website to me. Like I said, this appears to be the only website with a map showing the Residential Areas of Gibraltar.Inkan1969 (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Argentine Naval Forces (answer).

I can live with a certain mixture of Spanish and English headers. Grupo de Tareas 79.1 would be more confusing than Task Group 79.1 but South Atlantic Theatre of Operations sounds like a US or UK organisation. Teatro de Operaciones del Atlántico Sur was the name in 1982. Often the non-English name of opponents are used i.e. "Luftwaffe" instead of "the German Air Force" Battle of Britain#Luftwaffe strategy, First Battle of El Alamein#Panzer Army Africa attacks. According to the talk page you agreed in using the Spanish names, but you removed the Spanish names [2] - opposite your "agreed to put in the Spanish names". This is English Wikipedia, but not everything should be translated, i.e. "Flying fish missile", "Super battle standard" fighter bomber, "Twenty-fifth of May" aircraft carrier, "River big-water" coast guard cutter, "Admiral Irízar", "Great River" air base … --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why the Spanish text was removed since you both agree in having the names in both languages. It would have been ten times easier to insert your English translation and modify the Spanish name in the same edit. Perhaps you two have agreed that you (Justin) should delete the Spanish name and insert the English name. Later Jor70 should reinsert the Spanish name with some lang:es. I don't know if it's some kind of reconciliation between you two - but it's a clumsy way of editing! --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 07:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you are talking about. In Talk:Argentine naval forces in the Falklands War#Spanish names it seems like that you think that Spanish names are in order, as long as they got a Lang-ES. With the other hand you hastily removed the Spanish names and inserted English translations [3]. The agreement was to tag the Spanish names with the Lang-ES. Since TOAS now got both names, a search for South Atlantic Theatre of Operations on the English Wikipedia would lead to Argentine naval forces in the Falklands War and Teatro de Operaciones del Atlántico Sur would explain the 1982 abbreviation TOAS. TOAS will come in handy instead of writing "South Atlantic Theatre of Operations" all the time (the self-made SATO would be confusing). --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You started this debate, not me. I'm just politely answering your edits on my user page.

TOAS is a well-known acronym for Teatro de Operaciones del Atlántico Sur.

SATO is as stated earlier SELF-MADE in order to show what would happen if Teatro de Operaciones del Atlántico Sur is removed from the article.

Your agreement with Jor70 was "to add back the Spanish names with a Lang-Es tag". But you deleted the Spanish name and replaced it with an English translation[4]. That's not adding back Spanish name - the timing is wrong. 1st May 2009 Jor70 agreed and the same day you removed the Spanish name. So your "just hadn't got round to doing it" is a bad excuse. I can't see why it was impossible to insert the English translation and tag the Spanish name with Lang:ES in the same edit. I didn't reverted your edits "back to a half-way house that everyone had already agreed was unsatisfactory". In the beginning there was only a Spanish name, later there was only an English name and now there are the names in both languages (like your Army Group North example). I admit that I didn't tagged the Spanish names with Lang:ES, because I used Argentine air forces in the Falklands War as a guideline. Lang:ES is a good idea so if it's because I didn't tagged them then speak up instead of debating things we already concur. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I’m very sorry that I’ve wasted your time. I’ve found the reason for the confusion. When I look at Talk:Argentine naval forces in the Falklands War#Spanish names I can see you first post 14:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC) and Jor70’s last post 14:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC). When I look at Revision history of "Argentine naval forces in the Falklands War" I can see that you change to English Language Title 2009-05-01T15:52:24, more than an hour after Jor70’s accept. Unfortunately my Date and time in My preferences is set to Central European Summer Time, which is two hours earlier than UTC. So your timing WAS correct: 13:52:24 UTC you replaced the Spanish name with the English name. 14:09:35 Jor70 is complaining at the Talk page, and you agree to reinsert the Spanish name with a Lang:ES. My initial information was that you removed the Spanish name more than an hour after Jor70’s protest. That was why I couldn’t understand why you didn’t inserted the English name AND the Lang:ES simultaneously. It is now clear to me what you wrote to me on my talk page. I hope that you can forgive me.

The acronym SATO was a hypothetical, self-made (by me) example of what would happen if Teatro de Operaciones del Atlántico Sur was removed – either writing South Atlantic Theatre of Operations in full all the time or using a self-made SATO. I’ve read many English books regarding the Falklands War and I’ve seen TOAS from time to time. So I didn’t invent the acronym TOAS at all.

After Toddy1’s last edit, I don’t know how Lang:ES could be added. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ushuaia

Hey, I want to invite you to the ongoing discussion in Talk:Ushuaia about the entrance text and the title of the southermost city. I think the section "southernmost city" in the article is good but to point out in the first sentence that Ushuaia IS the southernmost city is not fair. Dentren | ^Talk 08:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Unfortunately, my RFA was closed recently with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your support and I hope I can count on it in the future. Even though it didn't pass, it had a nearly 2 to 1 ratio of support and I am quite encouraged by those results. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns that were brought up and resubmit in a few months. If you would like to assist in my betterment and/or co-nominate me in the future, please let me know on my talk page. Special thanks go to Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — talk

Accusations

Persistently accusing someone of supporting or excusing terrorist activity is a serious issue. I have asked you to apologise/withdraw on the talk page concerned and strongly recommend that you take up that opportunity. --Snowded ^TALK 18:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

365

The term 365 for mutton seemed to come into existence after 1982, the media got hold of it somewhere and it entered urban legend. I have never heard a Falkland Islander refer to it as 365 (although I have seen many tv programs say we do!!) and I think it was probably a joke either Military or between a couple of people. BennyTec (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

AA

Thank you Justin, but it's not really patience, just faint amusement. I've gotta avoid playing his game though, I suspect he only comes here to wind people up and lives off of people replying to his 'ideas'. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"rv before adding cite"

Sorry - I guess I didn't understand what your edit summary meant. I thought it was an instruction, not part of a sequence of events. - Ahunt (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar self-government

Dear Justin, I can't understand why you delete my edits on the Gibraltar article and then post the following comment in my page: "You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gibraltar." I have not intended to start an edit war, just eliminated a reference that seems controversial and was not supported by any reference (1) and repositioned some uncontroverted facts (2):

1) The article began with the expression "Gibraltar (...) is a self-governing British overseas territory (...)". This was not supported by any objective reference in the article and, in fact, it is something not endorsed by the UN (see below), which at least provides some ground for not accepting the self-government of Gibraltar as a self-evident fact. Therefore, I substituted it for some referenced facts.

2) The article referenced the fact that Gibraltar is on the UN's non self-governing territories list but British and Gibraltarian polititians think that it should be removed. Only it was lost somewhere in the middle of this (long) article. I repositioned this information to the introduction of the article where it summarises the territory's political nature. It does not matter if 50 years ago it was the UK who nominated Gibraltar for the list: this status is reviewed every year and has not yet been reverted by UN's Special Committee.

What surprises me is: I would have expected that if you disagree with my edits, you would discuss them or, if you think they do not offer a holistic view, you complete them with additional referenced facts. Instead of that, you just deleted the edits and accused me of edit warring.

I will appreciate your discussing the changes and contributing with additional insight and referenced facts. Please do not merely undo my edits.

Kind regards.Imalbornoz (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to discuss this the appropriate place is the talk page of the article, not here as this is not a matter between you and justin. The reality is that since the 2006 constitution Gibraltar is manifestly self governing, sadly progress on delisting it by the UN C24 is hampered by Spain's foolish attitude and intransigence. It is amusing that that committee is comprised of representatives of states with less democracy than Gibraltar and if you follow the proceedings they have been singularly useless in achieving anything in relation to their remit on ANY territory such that the GoG declined to attend further meetings. In relation to the politics of Gibralar, which is what the article is about, the UN is irrelevent - indeed the committee has not even visited the territory in question despite being invited to do so by the GoG and the UK. They are not so much a paper tiger as a limp piece of used bog roll. --Gibnews (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not insult my intelligence that your intentions were anything other than to push a POV with that edit. The facts remain that Gibraltar is self-governing. It is only Spain that for its own political agenda denies this and the UN C24 is discussed in the article. Your POV edit sought to give those facts WP:UNDUE prominence. Your behaviour was also to edit war to keep that edit, hence my warning was appropriate. And as Gibnews points out the correct place for that discussion was the article talk page. Justin talk 09:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Justin, please believe me when I say that 1) I do not intend to insult anybody's intelligence and 2) I only intend to honestly improve the POV of the article and give due weight to a very relevant opinion. I think that most people will accept that the UN is a relevant international institution with a say over matters such as sovereignity, territories, and so on. I just tried to make sure that its position on that matter was given a proportional weight in the text.

You just immediately and repeatedly deleted my editing without any previous discussion-I would not be so sure as to say that it was me who edit warred. Also, I should remind you that I have just responded in your user's page what you wrote in mine. As Gibnews says, maybe it would have been better to start a new topic in the article's talk page.

Now, if you start that discussion, I will very happily participate in it. Before you do that, please read Gibraltar's Constitution. Looking at it, I would not say that there are no arguments to say that Gibraltar is no more self-governing than -say- the State of California or Texas. By the way, I do not see any reference to any kind of "self-government" in WP's article about California or Texas (or, for that matter in UK’s, France’s, Spain’s or Morocco’s). I suspect that the inclusion of that term in the FIRST sentence of the Gibraltar article IS trying to push some POV, unweighted by any reference to the UN's position. --Imalbornoz (talk) 09:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, no you sought to give undue weight to a position supporting the Spanish POV. The C24 is not the UN's position, it is a position adopted by a committee of nations who collectively are less democratic than the recent Gibraltar constitution. It is also a hypocritical organisation, since one of its chief protagonists is China who maintains a colony in Tibet in all but name. You seek to portray it as the UN position, which is only promulgated by either the Security Council or General Assembly. The edit you wish to portray is misleading. The UN also has no say over sovereignty, that is a matter for sovereign nations. The only nation that could deliver a judgement on sovereignty would be the International Court of Justice. The Gibraltar article does not state any POV it merely reports the fact the Gibraltar is self-governing. And as the person seeking to change the concensus on the article the onus is actually on you to initiate discussion on the talk page. Justin talk 10:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

In the first place, I wish to ask you again to presume good faith on my side (as I do on yours) and not accuse me of seeking to give undue weight to anything or insulting anybody. I have only restored the article to the consensus previous to an edit by Gibmetal77 on April 4th 2009. In fact, the consensus for SEVEN YEARS (since 2002, when the article was created) has never included that expression in the introduction (until last April, that is). I would say that either Gibmetal77 -or you, if you support his edit- should start the discussion if he or you wish to change that consensus. About the POV, I insist: it is controversial to say that Gibraltar is a self-governing territory. At least, it contradicts the position of the UN (which is an official organisation with a say over matters over sovereignity, no matter what POV you have about it) if you look at the resolutions of several of its bodies (among them, yes, the General Assembly). The International Court of Justice is not a nation. Also, the Constitution (which is the the only source you mention, but is not mentioned as reference to that expression in the article) does not support the view that Gibraltar is a self-governing territory (whatever that is). By the way, I find it a little bit sad that Gibmetal77's very significant change (so biased and without any external reference) has been able to live unchallenged for months in such an interesting article. I hope this comment clarifies my position :). --Imalbornoz (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You are giving undue weight to an issue, nor have you done anything to demonstrate good faith, indeed the exact opposite in continuing to push for a POV edit favouring a Spanish position, ignoring consensus and bandying accusations of bias with gay abandon. Talking about consensus for 7 years as you do is a moot point, the previous consensus did not give weight to the Spanish POV and more recent edits reflect Gibraltar's changing status and evolving constitution; ie Gibraltar has not stayed still. I might begin to presume good faith when you stop the pretence that the C24 represents the UN, it does not. You're misrepresenting UN statements to present Spanish POV as the UN POV, which is deliberately misleading. It isn't controversial in the least to state Gibraltar is self-governing. Again a) it is not the UN position and b) the UN does not have any say over sovereignty and c) Gibraltar is only considered by the C24 because the UK originally listed it as a colony. The C24 is increasingly an irrelevance in the matter, the British Government no longer choses to attend the C24 and now the Government of Gibraltar has also chosen to ignore it as well. The C24 was established to assist the people of colonial territories in achieving independence, instead it has allowed itself to become a platform for nation states to grand stand illogical 18th Century irredentism and ignores the views of the people it is supposed to represent. Nevertheless the C24 frequently reminds us in its statements that it is not a body that can arbitrate a sovereignty dispute; only the ICJ can do that. Gibraltar is self-governing, all British Overseas Territories with a settled population are. You simply seek to deny a basic fact because you perceive it undermines Spanish sovereignty claims. Again as the person seeking to overturn consensus, the onus is on you to initiate a talk page discussion, the relevant guideline being WP:BRD. Now having explained my position at length as far as I'm concerned this discussion is at an end. Justin talk 13:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Gibnews, I have simply answered in Justin's page what he posted in mine. Maybe you are right, and Justin should have discussed these issues in the talk page of the article instead of posting in my page.

About Gibraltar’s Constitution: if you read it, please take notice that Gibraltarians do not have any say over the appointment of their Governor. Also notice that this Governor has the power to -for example- "make, confirm and terminate appointments to any public office" (including Attorney General, Principal Auditor, Chief Justice, President of the Court of Appeal, ...). I would not say that the constitution is manifestly self-governing. I would be happy to develop on this if Justin opens the topic in the article talk page.

In other respects, I agree that the UN has room for improvement, but it is the only organisation that deals with these issues which the UK -who holds the sovereignity of Gibraltar- has agreed to participate in (and in a very privileged position: as one of the only five permanent members with power of veto!). The fact is that the UN IS relevant in these issues (of course there are people who think that it is not, and some of them do not have any problem when ignoring international law and, for example, invading other countries). Furthermore, I would not go as far as calling them "a limp piece of used bog roll". It might be perceived as insulting by somebody. --Imalbornoz (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you fail to appreciate that the role of the Governor in Gibraltar is rather like the King in Spain, and that the Governor does not in practice govern. The GoG does have an influence and veto in the appointment. I also think you confuse the UN with the C24; the latter has failed to achieve anything and has not even visited Gibraltar despite being invited to do so. Respect is something which needs to be earnt by progress and the C24 has not. Gibraltar is self governing since the 2006 constitution so reverting to a description seven years old is not appropriate. Promoting the view that Gibraltar 'is a colony' may be convenient for Spain's irredentist claim but it is otherwise nonsense. --Gibnews (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

In the first place, Gibnews, thank you for bringing this discussion to a more polite level. To follow your example of compararative analysis, I have taken a look at the Gibraltar Constitution and at the Spanish one. I can see some very relevant differences related to self-government, specially in the role and powers of the King of Spain and the Governor of Gibraltar. I will admit that Gibraltar has SOME degree of self-government. But even my hometown has some, and I would not dare to change the introduction in its WP article to describe it as "self-governing". About the UN: I understand that you have an opinion about the UN (and I probably share it in many instances). On the other hand, I think most WP editors would consider it as a relevant and verifiable source of information. Also, I should clarify that Gibraltar is described as a "non self-governing territory" NOT only by the C24 but by the UN ITSELF (please take a look at the UN's position). I suppose that you will agree with me that this UN'S description contradicts the statement defining Gibraltar as a "self-governing territory".

Given that 1) there is no verifiable reference in the article supporting the "self-governing" position, 2) that it contradicts the official position of a verifiable source, and that 3) there has been a very long (7 yrs if you look at the article history, 3 years since the approval of the new constitution) and stable consensus until last April, I think that it should go. I also think (but I may be wrong because I don't have a long experience in WP) that this position stands by itself supported by WP's policies (no matter my opinions) and if someone wants to change it they should start a discussion and try to gain new consensus (I insist that I may be wrong, although I don't think so, and in that case I would appreciate your explaining it to me). --Imalbornoz (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Were it not for the intransigent attitude by Spain in the UN Gibraltar would not be with the C24 any more than Bermuda, which has less self-government. For instance the Police are controlled by a civilian police authority and the Governor represents HM as the head of state but exercises no control on Government. Its something that is generally accepted - outside Spain which for its own purposes wishes to promote the 'colony of british ex-pats on stolen land' view. However wikipedia should represent the political position today, not what it was seven or 305 years ago. If you want to persue including the Spanish POV in the article, start a discussion on the talk page, but its a waste of time because its unlikely to prevail over the true position. --Gibnews (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Removing Category:Whaling from whaling station articles

Greetings, I removed the cat "Whaling" from several location articles as they are included in the new category Category:Whaling stations. Same as how ackee and saltfish might initially be filed under Category:Jamaican culture at first, but after the creation of Category:Jamaican cuisine it'd be redundant to have it appear in both a category and its subcategory. Works? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I was actually going to contact you later this week just to let you know about the new category, since I figured you'd be interested. I've gone and tagged a bunch of location sites with the new cat, though many are technically former whaling stations, but I figure at least getting the names into the cat is a start. If other folks are interested we can try and expand and refine the concept as it develops. If you have any ideas on how to develop the new Category:Whaling stations, your input would be great.

Gib

Please don't take this as an attack, just some constructive feedback. Lashing out at others just increases tempers on both sides and makes your "opponent" even more determined to have his way, which makes you even madder, and so on. If you bear in mind that we're all dead in the long run, does that help to put Wikipedia in perspective? When I get too worked up about stuff here, I try to remember that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Special Committee on Decolonization - Puerto Rico

Hello, Please review the restore I made of this article to its previous version. You seem to have had a problem with my addition of Puerto Rico to the article on Decolonization [5]. Your reason, though not entirely clear from your choice not to Discuss [6] first, appears to be "too much detail".

I disagree: if detail were not given, no encyclopedia would ever be written, don't you think?

This information was not found anywhere else in wikipedia and, if you thought the detail was too much, please condense it instead into something more of your liking. - thanks.

A second reason you mentioned for deleting the entire section was "POV". I see two problems with this judgement here:

• (1) You seemed to have failed to notice that all the edits I made consisted of quotes from published works or fully backed up by their corresponding supporting citations. It is thus not true that I am presenting my own POV. This leads me to believe that the real problem here was not with MY POV (I couldn't be guilty of this since I introduced no statements of my own), but that you had -your- own POV on the subject, but simply disagreed with the one of the published authors provided. It is OK to disagree; what I don't see as very honorable, however, is that the deletion was made instead of providing verifiable citations supporting the opposing POV, the one that you favor. Please edit the section entering the opposing POV.
• (2) If you felt the statements were other authors' POV (again, POV of the authors of the cited works since I made no claims of my own), you did not enter your own cited published authors supporting the other POV. Obviously, if there is one POV, there must at least be another POV as well, don't you agree? Again, please enter any opposing POV with verifiable citations.

I disagree there was any POV in the edits, certaily not of my own. Maybe there was POV from the authors of the cited works. In that case, why remove the information instead of entering the information supporting the other POV so the net effect is a neutral point of view?

There will always be POVs to everything - unless the "everything" is a fact - facts are not negotiable. This brings up the edit you made in removing a for the claimed long name of the Special Committee. Such long name would be a fact, and as such you should have had no problem adding the source. Instead the template was deleted - in my opinion a poor use of judgement.

Another option you and I would have in coming to an agreement on this is to spin off the SCD-Puerto Rico section into a new article of its own. Please let me know you thoughts on this.

For now, I have restored the article to its previous version asking that you edit that version presenting what you know to be the opposing point of view. Wikipedia is about presenting information, not about concealing it and, as such, keeping the whole Puerto Rico section out is not negotiable unless the details I introduced are already given elsewhere in wikipedia. Thanks for helping present a neutral POV, Rob99324 (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:BRD

Suggest you read this policy. We achieve a WP:NPOV by presenting all sides of the argument and I don't think you can claim you had a balanced POV by quoting Cuba and Venzuela's comments at the C24. Last time I looked the C24 considered a number of territories. You added way too much detail on an article on the C24 itself, it became an article about what the C24 allegedly said about Puerto Rico. Looking at the C24 report on Puerto Rico your edits weren't balanced.

I have no agenda here, I'm neither American or from Puerto Rico. As a neutral observer your edit was very partisan. Strongly held beliefs don't trump wiki policies. Justin talk 20:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Article is too short

Thanks for your thoughts. The article is way too limited and way too short in its presentation of the C24. Additional information is needed, not only on the Puerto Rico case, but also on the case of still non self-governing territories as well as countries which, like Puerto Rico, have have been removed from the non self-governing list but where objections and controversy still exist regarding the true status of the country. Without the additional information, the article is not that useful: a stub in the true meaning of the word. You can help by expanding the article and I suggest a template to the effect be added as soon as possible. The article has more potential.

While it may initially appear that "way too much detail was added about Puerto Rico on an article on the C24 itself", and appear that "it became an article about what the C24 allegedly said about Puerto Rico", with time -- if allowed -- the article can grow to include relevant C24 details about -each- of the territories of the C24, making it more useful. This objective was self-evident from the sub-headings initially added. Again, "you have to start somewhere", as the saying goes, or otherwise an encyclopedia would never be written. The POV observation may have some weight, but removing -everything- that's added will never get the article to mature past its current stub state. A more welcoming approach to article editing fosters its growth and encorages a NPOV on its own.

I will get back to you with a proposed revision as my time permits. Rob99324 (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Thule1981.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Thule1981.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 file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. B (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

My talk page

I hope I only have to ask this once. Please stay off it. Thanks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually I had no intention of posting on your page again. This morning you have engaged in personal attacks and I have simply suggested that you rethink your conduct and consider redacting some of the remarks you made. I've also politely asked for an explanation as to why you raised a Wikiquette alert but failed to do me the courtesy of informing me; something I note you have been warned about previously. Now having failed to elicit a response from three polite requests it is my intention to resort to a Wikiquette alert, I'll assume you can see this response and I'll respect your request not to post on your Talk Page. So I will delay raising an alert to give you time to respond. Regards, Justin talk 11:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User:90.201.120.243

Thanks for your message about this. You said the IP has been blocked, but there's nothing in the block log; do you know something I don't? Xyl 54 (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks! To add to the confusion he appears to have used 90.201.120.205 on the 24th as well. (I’m just working my way through the list) I’ve posted some messages, on the off-chance it's an innocent mistake (asume good faith, as they say!); any other ideas? A rangeblock? Do you know anyone who could do that? Or would be prepared to? Xyl 54 (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have rollback (just a pleb, me!). As for AN/I; I'm not averse to going nuclear on the third day, but we might need to do something in between first. Do you know the admin who blocked IP 90.201.120.30? Is it worth contacting him (/her)? Or do you want me to do it (you seem to be in the middle of something). Xyl 54 (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow! and all you have to do is ask? I didn't know that. So, we'll see what happens...Xyl 54 (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

IP vandal 90.201.120.243

I usually don't bite the newcomers, but in some cases they bite you like pitbulls ;). Thanks, mate.--Darius (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

• Granted :) Black Kite 20:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)