User talk:Kraken7

Welcome!

Hello, Kraken7, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Rockero 20:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kraken7 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. BusterD 15:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Please consider contributing to this page

You certainly have the references and know this material. Perhaps together we can build some consensus on this complex and strongly held issue. BusterD 15:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, wasn't it you who accused me of sockpuppetry? How can consensus be built when one of the parties stands accused of systematic vandalism? Kraken7 23:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And I still maintain my assertion, though from the beginning I've always allowed that I might be wrong about the suspect. That being said, there exists a dispute about the name of the war, and you have strong and well-founded arguments for "Mexican War." The new page provides a location where your advocacy can have a positive impact. Please consider using your knowledge and dedication to this issue in a constructive way. BusterD 23:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: You've publicly accused me of being a vandal and "still maintain" that accusation over my unequivocal denial, which means I'm not only a vandal, but also a liar. Yet, now you offer to work with me to "build some consensus." I hope you'll forgive me if I find your offer less than sincere. Kraken7 21:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much, that's the situation as I see it too. From my point of view, you're either not guilty of the accusation, in which case I should offer some meaningful olive branch (hence proposing working together to create an article which honors your position), or you are guilty of the charge I've leveled, in which case the scrutiny the sockpuppet case has brought to bear will block the offending account (and your position is less likely to be honored). In either case, you have demonstrated you have understanding and passion for this specific content beyond mine, and I'd like to hope the passion finds itself on the page as opposed to the ephemeral motion of talkspace and edit war. Either I'll apologize if I'm wrong, or I won't need to give a fig about you. I've acted in good faith thus far, and I'm continuing to do so in this offer.

It's put up or shut up time my new friend. Either demonstrate contribution to the pedia in a meaningful way by supporting your position in pagespace, or don't. Prove me wrong by your actions. I dare you. BusterD 01:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else. You falsely accuse me of being a vandal and a liar. You continue to imply that I am guilty as charged even after the Wikipedia gods find insufficient evidence to support that charge. You talk about offering "some meaningful olive branch" yet refuse to actually do so. I find your actions to date inconsistent with your protestations of having "acted in good faith thus far." Kraken7 01:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Response

First, please sign your talk page posts with ~~~~. Generally, dab pages don't carry talk pages - if you think that there is no basis for the dab, nominate it at WP:AFD. Cheers. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, you got around to signing it while I was responding. As for how much information is placed in the deletion notices, it's really a matter of discretion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop NOW

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue the Edit War over certain issues of the article Second Battle of Sirte, you will be blocked from editing. If you have a complain to make, please ask for a request for Arbitration. Keep an eye also on the 3 RV rule.--Darius (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

First, how is my editing disruptive? Second, it appears from Wikipedia policy that an attempt to block from editing require a presentation of evidence. Third, what does "keep an eye on the 3 RV rule" mean? Kraken7 (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. But the next time, if there is no agreement about an issue please 1) ask a Request for arbitration before plastering articles with tags, or 2) make a citation of your own. Thank you.--Darius (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Still didn't answer the questions. Kraken7 (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting a Request for arbitration...--Darius (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

The presentation on your user page seems to be a plagiarism of a 1971 movie's screenplay. How is this consistent with WP:COPYVIO policies?--Darius (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Surely, you jest. Kraken7 (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Still didn't answer the question. By the way, I'am as serious as you are with your ridiculous claims about "Original Research" and your wikilawyering style, Mr. Octopus. Darius (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this civility? Kraken7 (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Is civility to call me a "jest?".--Darius (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A lasting agreement

Hi, Kraken7. First of all, my sincere apologies about all the misunderstanding from my part these last days. I confused the verb "jest" with the noun "jest", thus I overreacted in the uncivil way I did. Of course, my concerns about the famous "Dirty Harry"'s quote copyright was just "light humor" as you said. I welcome your latest edit on our "battered" article about the "Second Battle..." and I believe things are fixed now. My apologies again for my misinterpretation of your words and Best Regards.--Darius (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"Undue weight"

1) The policy about undue weight in Wikipedia doesn't mention "percentages" of sources supporting a position, just vaguely states that "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." This is open to interpretation given the context.

2) Your focus on the supposed lack of neutrality in the section "Assessments" is erroneous. There is nothing in the text contradicting the idea of a "British victory". And since this section deals both with the battle and its aftermath, we simply cannot ignore those sources which describe the consequences of the battle (i. e.: the destruction of the convoy, documented by an overwhelming number of authors). The reference to an Italian "partial achievement" doesn't contradicts the fact of the British tactical victory; indeed, neither Mcintyre nor Stephen contradict themselves, since they are not dealing with the same subject. And if they are not dealing with the same subject (they are not putting in doubt the Royal Navy success), tell me please, where is the alleged "undue weight"? It is the same case of our discussion on "tactical victory" and "strategic victory" some months ago. Do you remember? You agreed then that a lonely source claiming an axis strategic success would be valid to support this idea, despite hundreds of authors asserting a British tactical victory.

3) You're miscounting the sources. The idea of partial achievement is supported not only by "three sources" as claimed. The citations include not only Mcintyre, Stephen or Sadkovich, but Bauer and Young, Llewellyn, Simpson, and some Italian sources like Bernotti and Giorgerini. Then we have now 8 sources, already cited in footnotes. And, as exposed in point 2), this is an 8-0 ratio; the partial achievement of the Italian side doesn't contradicts the idea of a "British victory", so this sources don't qualified as a "minority view".

4) I strongly disagree with the proposed changes in the text of the section, since these seem to ignore the aftermath of the battle (the main subject of the title "Assessments", I guess). The wording and the tone also seem unencyclopedic. I would not object, however, the deletion of the paragraph regarding the "Italian victory" imagined by the fascist propaganda.--Darius (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The above entry continues a discussion on a topic that was raised on the talkpage for the Second Battle of Sirte. Why was the above entry not made on that talkpage? Kraken7 (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That is not an answer. By the way, if for some unknown reason you are feeling uncomfortable with your own talkpage, you can copy my comments and paste them on the talkpage for the Second Battle of Sirte and made your comments there.--Darius (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No one has claimed the 9 February post was an answer. Further, it would seem more appropriate to have this discussion on the other talkpage. So, why wasn't the 6 February entry posted there in the first place? Kraken7 (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What you mean by the "other talkpage"?.--Darius (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The talkpage for the Second Battle of Sirte. Kraken7 (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Good. I was thinking of one of your sockpuppets...--Darius (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Copied and pasted on Talk:Second Battle of Sirte on 13 February 2009.--Darius (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

And, why wasn't it posted there in the first place? Kraken7 (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a question of preference...--Darius (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

And, the reason for that preference? Kraken7 (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting your answer to my 6 points on Talk:Second Battle of Sirte...--Darius (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Be careful what you wish for. Kraken7 (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Be extra-careful if I decide to continue this discussion on your main page...--Darius (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

What main page? Kraken7 (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You KNOW well what I am talking about...--Darius (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you know that I "KNOW well" what you're talking about, especially when I say I don't? Kraken7 (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-sense edit

What is exactly the sense of this "edit"? I can see no differences between the former edition and yours. I had already self-corrected the italics mistake.--Darius (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Was it vandalism??.--Darius (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, lawyer, Iam still waiting your response...--Darius (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

STILL WAITING...--Darius (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

So if there is no difference and it's already been corrected, what's the problem? Kraken7 (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed now. I was waiting since June; it would be easier had you post all this stuff on your main user talk page, and not on this "dormant" account...--Darius (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you read what I said?

I will not continue to discuss with you the question of alleged original research on the Talk page of "Second Battle of Sirte". I think we have reached a dead end regarding this issue.

Since further discussion would highlight the pervasiveness of original research in the article, your wish not to discuss is understandable. Kraken7 (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Prove it through a request of mediation.--Darius (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Better for you . . .

How exactly would this course of action be "better" for me? Kraken7 (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Just because PoV breaches Wikipedia policies.--Darius (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

. . . if you clarify why you selectively mentioned only the part which served to your PoV of sources such as Belot and Roskill.--Darius (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

See Second Battle of Sirte: Talk Page: Undue Weight, Part III: 27 August 2009 posts. Kraken7 (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I almost forget...talking about your selective tactics . . .

What is this? Kraken7 (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

To take only the part of a source which support your own PoV.--Darius (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

...read the article properly, please.

How does one do this "properly"? How do you know I have not been doing so all along? Kraken7 (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Because you continue to question even the obvious details.--Darius (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The "Assessments" section doesn´t assert an "Italian partial achievement" out of context (which could suggest some sort of "Italian tactical victory"); the text reads "a partial Italian achievement in delaying and turning the convoy aside, thus disrupting the planned schedule." I commend you to read the complete phrase, please.--Darius (talk) 00:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, this discussion is not about just one phrase in a single sentence, but rather about an entire section composed of 12 sentences, 10 of which emphasize Italian/Axis victory and the Italian/Axis POV despite what most sources say was a British victory (see 5 February 2009 post) and thus runs contrary to Wikipedia policy which enjoins editors not to represent a minority's viewpoint as if were the majority's (WP:NPOV).Kraken7 (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

How often I to repeat that there is NO mention to something like Axis/Italian victory in this section??--Darius (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Biased reading of sources

By citing only partially the opinions of Belot and Roskill about Second Sirte, you are apparently breeching WP:YESPOV: Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be fixed. You should explain why after a two years debate, you failed to mention that both authors establish a link between the battle and the fate of the convoy.

The quotes read:

• Belot (162-163): "Although it had escaped the Italian fleet, the convoy had not reached the end of its troubles. It had been delayed for several hours by evasive maneuvers during the battle, a delay which must be credited to Iachino's actions, and it could no longer reach Malta by dawn as had been planned. Furthermore, the cruisers had had to leave the convoy during the night and return to Egypt so as to avoid having to take on fuel from the limited supply at Malta. On the morning of the 23rd the merchant ships, sailing with reduced escort, were subjected to violent attacks from Axis aircraft."

• Roskill (55): "Unfortunately the delays caused by the recent battle prevented the convoy making harbour early on the 23rd, and this gave the German bombers another chance."

I think this concealment shows bad faith on your part in order to impose your own PoV.--Darius (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Where/when were "the opinions of Belot and Roskill about Second Sirte" "only partially" cited? Kraken7 (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

2. What does "link" have to do with WP:YESPOV? Kraken7 (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

3. How do the Belot and Roskill quotes demonstrate "a link between the battle and the fate of the convoy"? Kraken7 (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

4. Why is the Belot quote incomplete? Kraken7 (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no time to answer obvious questions. I am still waiting for request of mediation...

Response to your later edition (2:00 AM - Zulu) on the talk page of "Second Battle of Sirte"

Hominem te esse dicis; quid homo sis, nescio. Ceterum censeo fidem tuam punicam esse existimandam.--Darius (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this not the English-language Wikipedia? Kraken7 (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is, but if so, Why do you use phrases like "argumentum ad hominem"??--Darius (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Some foreign words and phrases have been taken directly into English; ad hominem is one of these. Argumentum may be a bit excessive but its English counterpart, argument, is an almost exact match. Therefore, while it may look like a foreign-language phrase, two out of the three words in it are now part of the English language while the third can be easily understood. Kraken7 (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point, but still this is a Latin phrase.--Darius (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

And your point is? Kraken7 (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Simply that yourself have acknowledge that a word of the phrase ("argumentum") is not English.--Darius (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

And, I have since translated that single word. Meanwhile, your sixteen words (none of which is recognizable as a word in English) remain untranslated. Also what of your attempt to accuse me of misreading p. 72 for p. 52? Kraken7 (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You have already used one of the "sixteen" words (the accusative of "homo"). For the rest, don't miss the oportunity, learn Latin, it's a marvellous ancient language...--Darius (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

And, since this is the English-language Wikipedia, perhaps you can take this opportunity to learn English, it's a marvelous modern language. Kraken7 (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I learned enough English to add almost 40 new articles to WP and also to deal with "cock and bull" trolls like you. "Kraken7, the Cock and Bull user"...what a beautiful English phrase...--Darius (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

How does contributing "almost 40 new articles to WP" demonstrate fluency in the English language? Kraken7 (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you really know to read your own mother language, man?? I used the verb "to add", not "to contribute".--Darius (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The question is whether facility in the English language can be demonstrated by referring to how many new articles an editor has allegedly added/contributed. A question still unanswered. Also, the phrase in English is "mother tongue" not "mother language" ("Webster's New World College Dictionary," fourth edition. New York: Macmillan, 1999). Kraken7 (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

After your addition of all this junk to the discussion, who is introducing a "red herring" here?? Here you can view the info you asked for.--Darius (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

But, how does a list of the articles added/contributed demonstrate fluency in the English language? Kraken7 (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Just read those articles...--Darius (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, speaking of misspelling and the marvellous English language, Did you notice that I had to correct you, a.....e?.--Darius (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

And please refresh your math skills, mate. There are only 15 Latin words there.--Darius (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"Page 72" mistake - That was not the point

"Page 72" mistake (my mistake) is NOT an issue; I suggested you to read the new version of the article regarding, for example, Belot and Roskill remarks, which you intentionally ignored for months.--Darius (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Please, read carefully what sources say

Sadkovich personal assessment on the Second Battle of Sirte overrides ANY other citation he makes (Mcintyre, Iachino, Weichold), so please stop editing the section "Assessments" under the pretense that Sadkovich claims a British victory.--Darius (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia policy or guideline refers to a source's "personal assessment" that "overrides ANY other citation" that source may have made? Kraken7 (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, this was acknowledged by you in past threads:

• "Of twelve reliable published sources that have more than one full page about the battle: Seven maintain the British won (1); three express no opinion (2); one awards the Italians "a [qualified] moral victory" (3); and one avers the Italians were "not defeated" (4).

1. Bradford: "a tactical and moral victory (205), "brilliant naval action" (207); Woodman: "a noteworthy tactical victory" (316); Macintyre: "a tactical and moral triumph (136); Belot: "one of their most brilliant naval actions (159); Playfair: "successful action" (172); Thomas: "successful defence" (152); and Roskill: "defeated [the Italians'] purpose" (54).

2. Bragadin, Holland, and Greene & Massignani.

3. Sadkovich, 247.

4. Sierra, 365."

(19 August 2007)

--Darius (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What exactly was "acknowledged" in past threads? Was it that Sadkovich concluded the Italians won a "qualified . . . moral victory"? Yes, this was acknowledged. But, how does this preclude recognition that Sadkovich also acknowledged a British victory? Kraken7 (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Because that is Sadkovich personal conclusion; he never acknowledged something like a 'British victory'; he simply cites a number of other authors who claim a RN success. He uses the phrase 'more accurate' comparing Cunningham with Macintyre, but without endorsing any statement from them.--Darius (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget Italian sources claiming an outright victory and Sierra explicitly assessing 'no victors'. Of course, your xenophobic point of view will dismiss such authors as 'non-English'. Still, these are "sources with an opinion on the matter".--Darius (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As for the unnamed "Italian sources" and Sierra, how would anyone not fluent in both Italian and Spanish be able to verify that these are reliable sources? How would it be xenophopic to mention that on the English-language Wikipedia "English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages" (WP:V:Sources in languages other than English)? Kraken7 (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

1) Not unnamed "Italian sources", read footnote #35.

2) There are many English-language Wikipedians fluent in both Italian and Spanish; if those sources are not reliable, they will be able to tag or remove them. Sometime ago, a "Wikipedian" questioned an Italian-language citation on the basis that the text didn't adhere to what sources say. Do you remember?:

"How is depicting "the 'mood' of the regime after the battle" (31 August) an assessment? And, how does "Italian victory" accurately depict the regime's "mood" when Trizzino makes no reference to anyone's mood in endnote #32? Instead, he stated: "So, under an avalanche of lies was buried one of our biggest naval failures and the legend was born of the victory in the Second Battle of Sirte."" (6 February 2009)

3) Wikipedia policy establishes that English-language sources are "preferable", not exclusive or mandatory as you hint.--Darius (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

1) The sources were unnamed in the 30 June post.

Today is July 12.

2) a)How is it known that "many English-language Wikipedians" are "fluent in both Italian and Spanish"? How many is "many" exactly? How many of them have read this article? b)Moreover, positing the existence of tri-lingual Wikipedians does not answer the question: How would anyone not fluent in both Italian and Spanish be able to verify that these are reliable sources?

a)You have been able to read and translate an Italian source (I repeat:6 February 2009).

b) By assuming good faith from those "tri-lingual" Wikipedians. (You showed yourself at least bi-lingual).

Further, the original Italian-language citation apparently did not adhere to what the source said, but this provided zero insight into whether said source was reliable.

If you refers to Trizzino quote, that is history, mate.

3) How does quoting Wikipedia policy about sourcing constitute a "hint" that English-language sources are "exclusive or mandatory"? Kraken7 (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Because you are actually questioning the information provided by those sources, not the language they are written, in order to push your own PoV.--Darius (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

My last offer: Request for arbitration

This is your last warning. If you continue the Edit War over certain issues of the article Second Battle of Sirte, you will be blocked from editing. If you have a complain to make, please ask for a request for Arbitration.--Darius (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Kraken7 (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute: the neutrality of the article is disputed by you, not by me or others, so the right thing to do from your part is the request. It's not my bussiness asking for an Arbitration; I will ask instead for a request for comment regarding your suspicious account.--Darius (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with that, too. Kraken7 (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Good luck for you, too. You will need it.--Darius (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for Mediation??

The ball is on your side. Still waiting...--Darius (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)