User talk:Kahastok/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Welcome Back

Nice to see you back, good trip? Justin talk 20:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes thanks, good to be back though. Pfainuk talk 09:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Witney

Hello. I noticed your edit to the article Witney and, while I don't necessarily disagree with your edit, I disagree with your reasoning. Somebody does not need to be sufficiently notable to have their own article to feature in another article, for example characters feature in an article on a TV series without being notable enough for their own article. Secondly, there being no article on someone does not mean they are not sufficiently notable to have one. All it means it that nobody has written one yet, or that nobody has written one that asserted notability properly. Thirdly, red links are one of the ways the encyclopedia grows, so including a link to a page that has not yet been written is often a good thing. I would have asked on the talk page, and on the talk page of whoever added him, for evidence of notability before deleting that. Careful now! :) Skittle (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair comment, perhaps I was a little brusque in my edit summary! This was the standard used at Gibraltar a few months ago when a similar point came up (though that one was subject to a dispute involving AFD's and suchlike). I'll be a bit more careful in the future though.

Having said that, since your message I checked for "Aiden Meller" on Google, and got all of 20 hits, of which 15 were Wikipedia and its mirrors, and one other had Wikipedia in its title. I can't find anything that would suggest that he is actually notable by Wikipedia standards - and I think that's a fair standard to aim at for what is, after all, supposed to be a list of notable people connected with the town. It'd be different if he were relevantly mentioned in a different part of the article. Pfainuk talk 16:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

** and the euro

Greetings,

I noticed that you have moved several pages from '** euro coins' to '** and the euro'. This is a good idea, but I wonder why the same hasn't been done with Andorran euro coins? Andorra falls into the same category as Kosovo with regard to the Euro. Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 17:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I did it like that because much of the information in the Andorran article - and the information likely to go in it - relates to Andorra's intended future euro coins, whereas the Montenegro and Kosovo articles don't have that sort of information (since those countries don't intend to mint their own coins, at least as far as I know). I have no objection if you want to move the Andorra one as well. Pfainuk talk 19:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that Andorra is a different issue, as they are in official negotiations to mint their own coins. —Nightstallion 02:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Haydn Gold Euro Coin

Hi there, as a favour, can you please visit Talk:Joseph Haydn? I am putting a simple reference there to the Joseph Haydn Gold Euro Coin and it turns to be a huge argument with only one editor. If it is not too much to ask, please contribute. Thanks! Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, was about to make my comment when Opus added the image. Having looked at the situation, this was what I was going to suggest as a reasonable compromise anyway (as Theeuro says the licence is compatible with Wikipedia). A wikilink in "See Also" might be handy for navigation, but not essential I think. I'm pleased this appears to have sorted itself out. Pfainuk talk 16:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I am happy with the final results, will put my comments in the talk page. Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

VK

Thanks for the heads up, given his history on the Falkland Islands pages, I've had an eye on it for a while. Justin talk 20:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Your return

It is nice to see you around again Pfainuk.....if you are back to wikispeed, or when you are, would you consider a nomination for adminship? Narson (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm basically back up to speed. The Falklands articles have been quite quiet recently and I've been sorting things out with euros. On adminship... I've been looking at some of the various criteria that people seem to be using and I'm a bit short on a few of them. I don't really look at AFD or Recent Changes much (or DRV at all), and that's the sort of thing that seems to be a bit of a requirement. I know that technically the main criterion is that someone "can he be trusted" with the tools should be able to get them, and that it "isn't a big deal" - but at the same time there's this massive RFA process that seems to suggest the opposite: that having the tools is a really big deal and that you have to have ticked all of these boxes in terms of edit count and edit spread.

In any case, I think of my slightly wayward editing style, spending a long time over my edits (this, along with my trip, might explain why I've only made 750-odd in the last two years) and wandering around the place when my normal haunts are quiet. I'd probably work quite happily as an admin and I probably wouldn't be particularly controversial - but I probably wouldn't use the tools very much and I'm not sure they're worth the hassle of RFA at the moment. Pfainuk talk 23:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Need help again - another argument

This time in article Schloss Esterházy, the same user (with the help of another user) is constantly reverting my changes and is asking for another discussion. Can you please pitch in? Sorry to bother, Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if possible, please pitch in here WP:ANI as well. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi there, once again.

This time I write to give you a BIG THANKS for your support and a HUGE APOLOGY for all the trouble created with my contributions in non-numismatics related articles. I was honestly just trying to bring more traffic to the commemorative coins articles (which for me is, obviously, fascinating), but after a lot of thoughts I have realized that there is any sort of Wikipedians out there. Hence I have changed my views.

I will continue putting information here and there of commemorative coins as long as is notable and relevant enough, but I will not fight any more if the content is removed or changed. I might try in the talk page to ask for a consensus, but will not die for it. Instead I will concentrate all my efforts in trying to finish the "Euro gold and silver commemorative coins" series; which is already in a very good shape, thanks to people like you.

BTW, I have proposed Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium) for peer review, hoping that can be promoted to a featured article. The final goal will be to create a Euro Coins Collector's Portal with all the series and information from articles that you have contributed, and (if possible) get it promoted to a featured Portal. If you are interesting in helping in this process, please comment here. I hope it gets promoted, and after this learning process, I am planning to propose immediately Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Ireland) and Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria), which are almost completed from my stand point.

Once again thank for your support. Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Gib

Arbitrary breaks have been added after the event to break up discussion and give anchors and things Pfainuk talk 19:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting involved on the Gib page. It is nice to have a calm voice around and nice to see you, as always. Narson (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I got a bit bored with the "blame" bit - it seemed to start getting into mudslinging and I got a wave of TLDR (an essay which I think is quite appropriate there) - we'll see what happens. It did occur to me that our four-lettered friends may be an an incarnation of another user, but I'm not sure since they have been rather more civil than he ever was. FTR Justin seems sure that this guy is Alex. I'm not 100%, but the confrontational style is familiar... Pfainuk talk 19:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm fairly convined our four letter friends are the same person. IP starts off in spain, then switches to the netherlands before registering, then in comes annother spanish user with almost identical writing style and user name? Oh well, can't alter how you deal with people. Can't say GibNews does himself any favours, but I guess it is more of a personal thing for him. I can't see Alex not coming back as Alex, TBH. He seemed that cock sure of himself. Narson (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - particularly since one has disappeared since you mentioned it elsewhere! I've been AGF-ing and it seems to be working (which it never did with Alex). On Gibnews I agree completely - not much we can do about it though and he does seem to know the subject very well.

Smackyrod... I had a long spiel written out reasoning both sides and not really coming to a conclusion. Then I realised that we know his IP: 201.250.35.85, which is Argentine. We also know Alex's: 72.83.213.184 - which is USA-based. Alex may be on holiday, or he may be Argentine and studying in the US or something but I reckon 95% they're not the same person - that low because of the similarity in style. Pfainuk talk 22:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've a pretty good idea of who Alex79818 is, your second guess is pretty much spot on. Justin talk 22:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh aye, GibNews knows his stuff. Hopefully once we get these four points straightened out we can put it all behind us. I can't say Gib is a huge interest of mine, it only ended up on my watchlist after one of the argentine vandals crossed over to there. How are we doing on the falkland articles anyway? Should we be improving any of them? Narson (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC) (ec)

Gibraltar - I've been watching that article for a while but don't generally get very involved. Mind, that's the same for a fair proportion of my watchlist. I'm hoping we can get it sorted out soon. Checkuser on the four-letters... assuming they're the same person, what they're doing is against SOCK - but OTOH he seems to have abandoned JCRB and is sticking to MEGV, so I'm not sure what it would accomplish. If they start agreeing with each other again, an SSP might be appropriate.

The Falklands - we probably should be improving them, but I don't think there're any major issues at the moment. I don't like the name of the 1833 British return invasion whatever article, but I can't think of a better one (maybe WP:MILHIST would be good for that).

There's a new bot currently in perma-discussion with the aim to produce stubs for as many settlements as possible/reasonable. FI settlements are not comprehensively done, and the articles we have are mostly substubs that have been edited maybe twice - but on the other hand I'm not sure that most of those settlements aren't actually just individual farms, so there're notability concerns. Plus we'd need to get hold of some FI census data - it may be available in London, or we may be able to get the FIG to publish some basic data (population, elevation, lat/long, that sorta thing). If we go for it I would figure on generating a full set of articles for notable FI places outside Stanley (which will have infoboxes) and then merge the current articles into the bot articles. Pfainuk talk 10:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't think anyone likes the 1833 title, I've not sat down and had a good think about it. Narson (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate that title personally, I have tried but its difficult to come up with something that doesn't favour either POV (Return is British, Invasion is Argentine). Best that I came up with was "Events leading to the British occupation of the Falkland Islands, 1833". Even that is clunky. Justin talk 11:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

British re-occupation of the Falkland Islands (1833)? Though people will whine over occupation. Narson (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Its better than my attempt, who would whine over occupation? We should probably relocate the conversation to the Talk Page anyway. See you there. Justin talk 11:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

By the way guys, is there any reason why you haven't requested a checkuser request on those two editors on Talk:Gibraltar? Coming cold to the case it seems distinctly odd the way they appear together. Their contribution history and that of two IP editors shows some remarkable similarities. Justin talk 23:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I put in a request and withdrew it, we don't have evidence and, well, they arn't being disruptive enough. WP:SSP would be the place for it if they got disruptive I imagine. Checkusers are strict about when they do things. Narson (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break 1

UNINDENT

Is it too late to bean myself with a wall? Ugh. Narson (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I might join you. Pfainuk talk 18:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, in my mind it is sorted now, he just needs to finalise a proposed wording for point 4 and pick one for point 2, and we are done. Point 1 is sorted and point 3 we have explained ad naeseum. Narson (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Chances of arguments on point 3 actually producing a conclusion now that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT has set in? Slim, I think. I'll suggests he rereads on that point and go on to point 2. I must admit though, he's looking more like Alex with every message - Alex also tended to write long spiels of waffle that refused to get the point with bits randomly bolded, and his suggestion we go to WP:V as if it backed him up seemed to be straight out of Alex's playbook. Pfainuk talk 19:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Having watched this from the sidelines, there is clearly a lot of tendentious editing, a lack of good faith, serious personal attacks and a POV push. Basically as I see it, he's battered his POV into the article with tendentious editing, it smells of sock puppetry. I do notice certain characteristics straight out of Alex's playbook as well. Did you think about taking this to mediation? Justin talk 20:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I find myself constantly wanting to scream tl;dr. Did you see the size of that page now? I can see what you mean about Alex...though that would make Alex some kind of master sock puppet user, and if he was, wouldn't he have pursued Justin more? Narson (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Responding to Justin...Well, the intro I think he had a point, the previous wording was clunky and sovereignty didn't need to be mentioned (It is f-ing complex with the various claims and counter claims). However in the text? I think the lead is there for someone to glance at and gain a quick summery. Once we are in the body of the article, we have space to go into things if we want. Narson (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It's got the same way with the Falklands Medcab in that at this point he isn't arguing to find a solution - and he's not AGF-ing, so I don't think mediation will help. The initial point was fair enough if badly expressed - some academics argue the point and allowing the fringe view in without acknowledging it was a decent compromise at the time. But he seems now to be claiming consensus that it's as valid as the mainstream view, which it isn't. He still seems to claim the Spanish government agree with the fringe view when they themselves say the opposite. It doesn't help that my argument against changing it isn't the simplest in the world. In any case, we shouldn't be over-accepting of fringe theories, and this is one.

On the sockpuppetry, if it is Alex it may be a front to start on other articles and get a respectable edit history before laying into Nootka and the Falklands (which was the other account's single purpose) - or he may have decided that's a lost cause. The ease with which Justin ID'ed Smackyrod may be significant (assuming they're the same person). We already have some evidence that MEGV and Alex79818 have both sockpuppeted - it's not inconceivable that they are the same person. And it's not difficult to get IP's from all over the place associated with an account. The IP's that have edited my user page & (now redirecting) "countries" subpage are in the UK, Bolivia, Finland and Laos - all were me and I didn't use proxies. Pfainuk talk 20:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Alex gave himself away on the Smackyrod account. I always check the contribution pages of IP vandals as they often splurge on multiple pages. Smackyrod also edited on the Monroe doctrine with a POV edit and repeatedly reverted, he then posted on the talk page, it was pure Alex and a light bulb went off in my head. I'm about 80% certain I'm right but calling him out on it may have deterred him.

Given the single minded purpose of the Alex79818 account, obvious familiarity with wiki policies and processes, I was certain it was a sockpuppet. I did a little googling to try and figure out his main account and found he was really careless with personal information. Within about 5 minutes I'd pretty much figured out who he was, where he lived, his home town and a couple of his relatives. I had two main accounts that I suspected but nothing concrete and the Alex79818 seems to have been abandoned since January. I suspect it was an old account reactivated for a POV agenda and abandoned as it was associated with too much personal information.

I dunno guys, you've done the right thing so far. Gibnews may have slightly shot himself in the foot with some personal attacks. There is clearly a single minded purpose here; to put a fringe position into the article with undue emphasis. There is some indication of sock puppetry - I just don't buy there are two editors there. They style is all Alex but I'm not sure he was up to using proxies (but that isn't exactly rocket science) and sock puppetry is a new one for him (but not beyond the realms of possibility). It seems to have got to the point where he's just trying to grind you down with a tendentious argument till he gets his own way. WP:RFC? Justin talk 21:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Grind me down? He'll have a time. All he is doing is hardening my view. His 'I'm unwilling to compromise' attitude gets my goat. And by jove sir, my goat shall be returned! Narson (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break 2

(Unindent) Yes that's my feeling as well, but point 3 seems to be at an impasse anyway (I'm AGFing on the talk page and suggesting he's unintentionally misunderstood, but I don't believe it). On past performance I hardly think that if the remaining points are resolved he will just go away. JCRB has vanished, but if he returns we ought to SSP them. Pfainuk talk 23:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey look, when it appears he has smacked a brick wall, JCRB comes out again! And agrees with him! Colour me suprised. Narson (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Shocker, isn't it? How d'you think an RFC would go down - or a comment at WP:FTN? If only to end the discussion once and for all because I don't think it will end unless that sort of thing happens. Pfainuk talk 18:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Does it even count as a fringe theory? It is a debate among a small number of academics. THe main spanish claim under the Treaty of Utrecht is that the 1967 granting of autonomy meant Britain no longer wanted the colony thus it should revert to spain. Also that Britain broke the treaty by expanding into the isthmus. It also holds that spain cannot transfer sovereignty (claiming it is 'unwaivable'). If we tried to list all the claims in every damn sentence that mentions sovereignty, the article would be five miles long. Unfortunatly we don't have evidence for SSP and it is not disruptive enough. We might do well to bug an admin for some advice. I might ask Roger or Ryan Postlethwaite to check and let us know what we should do. Narson (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. At any rate, I won't make any response tonight, and I'll check back tomorrow, though I'm having a bit of a busy weekend! Pfainuk talk 22:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh look, he's agreeing with himself again. Just a thought, are there any sources for the fringe view that don't state/imply it as the Spanish position (contradicting the Spanish government)? It just occurred to me that this was something I may not have properly looked for before and I couldn't find any in a quick check through the discussion. Pfainuk talk 20:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the sources are crap anyway. The author he cites? She is /such/ a successful academic that she published one book and then quit academia to be a trader. Clearly an authoritative source there. 22:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC) (Preceding message by Narson - added by Pfainuk 23:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC))

Lol - I didn't know that. Hoping you don't mind my minor stalkage, it looks like Roger made a pretty good point - one thing that's crystal clear is that there's no consensus for change. I've backed up your message on the talk page. Pfainuk talk 23:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I kind of feel guilty for being so blunt on the Gib page but this silly waste of time has to stop. I am sure he means well, I can understand how people feel 'national blocs' prevent the 'truth' from being in Wikipedia, but this is not helping any of us. Narson (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - it needs to be done though or else this will never end. It's not like he hasn't had plenty of opportunity to air his views or that there's much likely to come out of more discussion. It is true that sometimes national or other blocs of editors prevent NPOV, but it's pretty clear to me that this isn't such a case. Pfainuk talk 15:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want NPOV, don't go to the non-English wikis :) Much smaller pools of editors results in much larger POV pushing. Narson (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I quite enjoy nosing around them. Which means that having switched to SUL I now have editless accounts on about 40 different projects in languages that I don't speak. I even got welcomed to the Catalan Wikipedia which was a bit random. Pfainuk talk 22:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break 3

Given that this sort of thing doesn't always come over well online, my comment was more directed at MEGV/JCRB than you - the challenging was based on the assumption that if I didn't say it, MEGV/JCRB might complain when I promptly challenged/reverted him for lack of sources after he just copy-pasted that text into the article. Certainly no offence intended on your side. Pfainuk talk 21:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hrm? I don't think I have all the answers ;) I simply think it is best in these things to state what you consider to be the utter limit. I think I'm likely the one most willing to bend on the talk page, so hopefully if he sees the limit of what I will go to, he will seek consensus within those bands. I have not got into how anything he wants added from all the topics still needs cites, I didn't want to be deluged with huge chunks of texts from books again :p Narson (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I thought I caught a bit of a "harumph" tone from your message and wanted to make sure the air was clear (tones of voice and things aren't always obvious when online) - no biggy :). As I said on the page, I'm not really happy to go that far: I think it's a small and not very relevant detail - but that might just be me being bloody-minded. I'm pretty sure Gibnews won't be happy in any case. Pfainuk talk 22:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I'm cool :) I'm a bit miffed at having to deal with this, considering I got involved to try and help him. It seems to be the month for POV warriors to come out of the woodwork, I just need to stop being so darn snappy. Oh well, had a good day today, our new dining room furniture should arrive next week. Solid elm with leather padding on the chairs and elm lattice covered with glass on the table tops. Taken 4 months to get here. Narson (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool. My original part in all this was the revert of the original edit, so I guess he has a reason to be pissed off (though I did. But he seems to see compromise as a dirty word and is now trying to use the threat WP:DR to force his edit in. Notice that JCRB didn't agree with MEGV on using DR, he just took that as read. Pretty good evidence of sockpuppetry, if any more were needed.

I've been having a bit of a dull time of it here. My biggest excitement of today was getting the barber to cut off several inches of hair - I really should do that more often but meh... Pfainuk talk 22:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have several inches of hair to cut ;) I am not dealing with the gib page tonight, need a day's break to maintain my calm. It is frustrating to have to explain the same thing over and over, y'know? Hrm...why am I going to train to be a teacher again? Narson (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't any more! Fair enough on Gib - I didn't put anything and Gibnews responded putting pretty similar points to what I would have done, and rather more politely than probably I would have done it. Which means I probably need a day off as well.

Going back to do teacher training never quite appealed to me. The kids tend to find Physics a bit dull and (going on what you hear, anyway) the syllabus doesn't help. But then, graduate job hunting isn't very appealing either! Pfainuk talk 10:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, i have to get through three years of history first ;) Are you enjoying the good cop bad cop routine JCRB and MEGV are doing? Oh well, happy to have it continue as it moves MEGV closer to a reasonable position. I do think MEGV has a couple of points, the problem is that rather than sort it out with edits, he wants to do this talking thing, and it is all ladelled with POV, his side included. Narson (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, history. Not much radioactive stuff there, and not much liquid nitrogen to play with, but I guess you'll have to cope!

There are some logical points there, I think, but he's talking, not doing, as you say. Inertia has set in. I can quite see that the changing position of the Spanish government on the status of Gibraltar is pretty relevant for the history section on Disputed status of Gibraltar. But on Gibraltar it's a pretty small detail.

The thing I find ironic - that I realised since my last edit (should have cottoned on earlier I think, but hey) - is that if we find a compromise, he'll need our help to sell it to Gibnews: they don't exactly seem likely to be able to thrash out compromise on their own, do they? If we were to quit, any chance of his succeeding in getting any significant change would go with us. He's doing a really good job of getting us on side, isn't he? Pfainuk talk 22:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have the feeling this is just the start. After this we will have the five hours of arguing over the words once it goes in, combined with constant squabbly edits over what the refs say :) Narson (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Latest response was probably the worst example of ABF that I've seen since Alex. I've spent a little while on my response, which is a good thing, since it's toned down a fair way from where I started!

Yeah, this'll be a while to get sorted out - it seems to have ground to a halt again, and that particular response was a good step towards stalemate (no consensus to change, we stay where we are). I'm not sure that with the Gibnews factor, the entire discussion on point 3 (Franco's position) isn't academic anyway. The other - well, your version seems good enough for me if sourced but I'm not very sure on the details.

If he continues to ignore "Spanish sovereignty" I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to include it on the assumption that if he objected he would have said so! Just to let you know, I'm away this weekend, so you guys'll have to fend him off on your own for a bit. Pfainuk talk 20:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You know what really gets me? I couldn't give an arse about Gibraltar ;) Not a subject that I'm interested in, it was just on my watchlist due to some vandalism by an argentine editor. Yet it is sucking up an insane amount of my patience with wikipedia so little else is getting done. Narson (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This has got stupid - he's not going to convince anyone, let alone Gibnews, by repeating himself over and over (which is what this has degenerated into). I'll assume good faith in his claim that he AGF'ed and assume that he hasn't read a single word I've written over the last couple of weeks - to be fair that would be surprisingly consistent :-p. In any case don't think I can be arsed to continue with it - I've got better things to do with my time (that's not to say I'll let him put it in, I'll leave it tonight at least and see if he responds again).

Incidentally, what do you think of a Sovereignty of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands article (link is to my user space, article doesn't exist)? I'm a little concerned that I won't be fair to the Argentines since I don't know of any historical basis for the Argentine POV (claimed or otherwise). Pfainuk talk 17:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've done a (very basic) start-off there, to be improved upon. I don't mind people adding to it, and I don't mind getting it deleted as CSD U1 if that's the prevailing view. Otherwise it'll move to the mainspace (to keep the edit history) when it's ready. Pfainuk talk 20:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break 4

This seems less like consensus building, more like being beaten around the head with a 2x4 over and over again. I can't even be bothered to write up a response saying 'Please see above.' Narson (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. It is getting silly now (two months in and counting). I did find it funny how he said we should be reassessing our positions every time he repeats himself. Pfainuk talk 13:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I especially liked the bit about how consensus is about giving way. Yet he seems reluctant to give an inch, though I assume he believes himself right so I can understand that I suppose. The whole 'I have no POV' is a bit odd too. It is not assuming bad faith to believe everyone has a POV, even if it is the POV of someone who doesn't give a toss ;) Narson (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not even like you have to look for the clues to work out his POV - it's clear in most of his edits. On the inch-giving - if he seemed to take on board our arguments, and tried to make allowances for them, I might have a bit more respect for it. But he just ignores them, like he ignored Gibnews' source even when I brought him up on it.

Anyway, I'll keep watching and see what happens. Time for JCRB to return do you think :)? Pfainuk talk 15:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, I can't be arsed with this one tonight. I like the way he thinks that by repeating himself he has "countered" and "challenged" other viewpoints - and that we should be responding, and that he's the only one making any constructive suggestions. I also find it amusing that when accusing us all of incivility in the diffs I gave him he was rather more uncivil than any of us were :-p. Pfainuk talk 19:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. This is not constructive. It hasn't been for some time. I notice dispute resolution hasn't come back up since I told him it doesn't apply, so obviously does pay attention. Narson (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. He also did a quick about-face on his suggestion that he would make edits without consensus if we didn't start agreeing with him. That's pretty good evidence that he's deliberately refusing the get the point though - so it doesn't help him much. You'd think it was obvious that he won't get consensus if he sticks to his point.

I'm wondering if a Wikiquette alert might be appropriate - based on AGF, CIVIL and IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I've never done it before, mind. On civility his complaints about others' incivility are rather less civil than the comments he's complaining about. And he did tar everyone with the same brush (this diff, first paragraph) when the diffs I gave included edits by me, you and Gibnews. You haven't ever been uncivil there and I don't think I have. Blunt, maybe, but civil. Pfainuk talk 21:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

GibNews would likely get in a spot of bother when an admin checks the page, I think. He stepped over the line in his forcefulness. Though I'm not sure if that is our concern really. Certainly that page does need an admin to check it over, I asked Roger a while back and he seems to think we are doing the right thing and it is pretty clear he will not gain consensus. Narson (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's true that he's sailed a bit close to the wind - they both have. So much for an "academic discussion", eh? In any case, Gibnews has always been like this, and he's not going to change now.

Maybe we should go to WP:AN or WP:ANI? I must admit, I'm thoroughly bored of the entire affair. Even WP:RFC? Only, it's pointless if MEGV won't listen to people who don't agree with him. His grounds for objecting to Spanish sovereignty, for example, are so tenuous that it's difficult to assume good faith in them. Pfainuk talk 10:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure it is worthy of AN or ANI, to be honest. I think the answer is to just ignore him at this point, except that is possibily uncivil. I am pretty galled about the spanish sovereignty, that sentence works, annexation (an accurate term) is 'vetoed' by him because it is not a 'nice' word, we accept this, yet when we say the same about some of his suggestions, he is reluctant to show us the same courtesy. The sources I find always speak of annexation or the transfer of sovereignty. They not speak of integration etc. Narson (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would be uncivil - I've said I won't make another long response and I don't intend to at this point. Totally agreed about the "Spanish sovereignty" thing - but it seems a waste of time to continue discussing it. If he's going to use such flimsy logic to oppose, you can rather tell he's just arguing the toss. Pfainuk talk 12:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I like this. JCRB comes back to try and deal with our non-responsiveness, pretending Gibnews' source has never been shown again. "If all editors agree [with essentially identical proposals to before] we can now move on to other more productive issues." is an obvious attempt to claim consensus even though it's clear there isn't one. I'd put in a countersuggestion on point 4 that would actually reflect the sources, but I think it would end up the same way as the other two points, so I don't see any point. Pfainuk talk 11:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I still think it will, but it occurred to me I haven't really made a suggestion so it was perhaps unfair to just declare what was after all a new proposal to be "without consensus" without explaining my objections. So I did. Here goes nothing... Pfainuk talk 16:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've given up to some degree. I've decided I'm going to put down now, I agree/disagree and a brief reason why, perhaps. I'm not going to suggest anything more. Everything that has to be said has been said. If he can't convince me or you to step aside, then he has no hope on GibNews and GibMetal. Narson (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. On this point I figure that there's some chance that pulling the "what source from Gibnews?" carpet out from under him, might end up with him sitting on the floor of neutrality with us on this point. Obviously I agree on your last point - it occurs to me that neither Gibraltarian has yet publicly accepted anything other than the status quo on the other two points. Pfainuk talk 00:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm done. The latest comment makes it clear, this is unproductive. If he wants to take it to ANI or ArbCom and be told they don't rule on content disputes, let him. Narson (talk) 12:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think there's actually anything we've all agreed on that isn't already on the page, since in his last message four-letters was digging his heels in apparently based on not having read the sources properly (including his own). We know of course that he can sustain not-reading-things for months. Pfainuk talk 14:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and of course JCRB came with your last-straw post and completely ignored that section so that MEGV can then come along and pretend I never wrote anything. It's too predictable. Pfainuk talk 14:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Now lets get back to something important. I think I'm going to work on my Thingmen article some more. Narson (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sovereignty of SGSSI is my project at the moment. I'm not sure how good it'll actually be when I let it loose, but there'll be at least something in every section. Pfainuk talk 21:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Now it is all quiet I looked over thei contribution history. Take a gander. Look at the time of edits, especially to the gibraltar article. Interesting reading, no? :) Narson (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but what struck me was actually the dates of the edits. I won't go much further here per WP:BEANS (though you're welcome to e-mail if you want more) but I basically shoved the edit history of Talk:Gibraltar into an Excel spreadsheet to see what was there. I don't know if you checked MEGV's IP address (145.221.52.70) - but it was in use long after the MEGV account was registered, primarily on Kingdom of the Two Sicilies and related articles, where he pushed the (apparently inaccurate) notion that said Kingdom was part of Spain using both MEGV and the IP addy. Pfainuk talk 11:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Bearer of bad news

Seems to be the season for it, i woke up to find someone had created the category British occupations and put the Falklands War, BAOR and other articles into it. Looking at the guys talk page he seems to have a history of disruption. I've removed the category from many pages and recommended it for speedy deletion. Can you guys keep an eye on those pages for more disruption? Justin talk 09:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Bearer of Good News!

Thought you might like to know that Ryan has got HMS Cardiff (D108) to the point where it is going to be the feature article on Wikipedia's main page for June 20. Justin talk 21:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Good on him. I hope he enjoys his day in the spotlight :) Pfainuk talk 22:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Gibraltar.com

Hi there

Im new to Wiki, so sorry if I am not posting correctly etc. All I wanted to find out is why I cannot add Gibraltar.com to the wiki site under general information. It is a very good domain name which if you go to the site you will see provides an enormous amount of info about Gibraltar for prospectful visitors to the country. There are many other sites listed in the same list on wiki that have adverts etc too? I personally feel that gibraltar.com is a far more stronger domain name and should not be viewed as merely an advertising site as it is being looked at right now. A domain name such as www.somenonsense-gibraltar.com I can understand your point of view. But not on a domain like Gibraltar.com which was purchased on sedo.com last year for 360,000 dollars and provides the info that it does.

Thank you for your time to look into this matter.

Kind regards

--Gazzarudi (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Gary

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia. I will add a copy of this comment to your talk page.

You can read our external links guideline here. Please note specifically point 4 of external links to be avoided (that's the same page): Links mainly intended to promote a website. This is further explained here.

You'll notice that our policy regarding what we call "spam" includes things that might not normally be called "spam". It's not just about advertising on the linked website, it's about advertising the website itself.

Finally, you may be interested in this. Discuss with other people at Talk:Gibraltar (ignore the very long discussion at the beginning and add a new section at the end). Or you could use the information on the website to add cited text. Bear in mind that there are a lot of websites on Gibraltar (we have to draw the line somewhere) and the domain name or web address is not considered relevant as to whether one should be included. Thanks, Pfainuk talk 13:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there

Ok - I understand your comments. However let me give you an example. Under references is listed this link about the Gibraltar Airport: http://www.gibnet.com/airport/index.htm Compare its info with http://www.gibraltar.com/gibraltar_airport.aspx from my site? Surely you are interested in having better info avaible on the wiki site? Can I not add then an info link as like in this example to the reference section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazzarudi (talk • contribs) 17:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a very big difference on Wikipedia between a reference and an external link. A reference - which may be to another website - is justification for a specific section of the text of an article. Our policies mean that we have to reference most of our material. An external link is a link to another website that is not being used to justify any part of the article.

If you were to add relevant material to the article, referenced to your site, then there would be no problem. You'd want to read some of our policies first: WP:FIVE could be useful, along with WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR and WP:CITE are the basics. You may also want to bear in mind that if the material isn't considered relevant to the article by others it may be removed on those grounds. If you're not sure, go to the discussion page, as I say, and people will discuss your edits with you.

Again, I will post this on your page so you get the big orange banner. Pfainuk talk 17:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok - I understand better now what you mean. I appreciate your time taken to explain everything. --Gazzarudi (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

DRV of Category:British occupations

As a participant in the discussion, you may be interested in the Deletion Review that has been listed regarding my closure of the discussion as "no consensus". Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 23:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Open Proxies

Cheers for the tip, I'm waiting for the semi-protect to expire as I expect him to be back. Justin talk 15:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

New Group you may be interested in

[1] Justin talk 21:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 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) 19:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5