User talk:Wee Curry Monster: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:54, 24 July 2011

Home

E-mail

——————————————— Wee Curry Monster's Talk Page ———————————————

Wee Curry Monster is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon.

Please note that it is 8:56 PM (GMT), where I live
I will normally reply to your message on your talk page but will frequently reply here if it is warranted. To be honest, the way I respond is chaotic and haphazard, don't be offended if I forget. For information, I have removed all user pages from my watchlist and the drama boards of WP:ANI and WP:AN, I am not interested in that nonsense.
One of my pet hates is the drive by tagger. People whose sole contribution to wikipedia is adding multiple {{cn}} tags to articles but never getting off their lazy backsides to find citations themselves. One aspect of this that is particularly irritating is they're often added in the middle of a sentence ignoring the existing citation, which 99% of the time corroborates the information. If you remove unneeded tags, provide an edit summary to that effect, their usual response is to edit war a tag back pompously spouting off about policy. If you're one of these people coming here to give me a lecture because I removed your tag, well, I strongly suggest you don't. I recommend WP:SOFIXIT ie get off your lazy backside and do the donkey work yourself instead of leaving it to others. I realise this is personal opinion but I consider the only use for tags is A) as a personal reminder to go back and fix something, B) to tag something you're concerned about, intuitively feel is correct but you can't find a cite or finally C) you've tried to find a cite, can't corroborate information but someone is edit warring challenged material back into an article. Do any of those and its thumbs up from me!
Please post new messages at the bottom of this page and don't forget to give your message a heading.
Remember to sign using the four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message.
Please be civil, if you fail to be civil I will simply ignore you.
As a Glaswegian (born, bred and proud of it) I speak directly and don't pussy foot around. Whilst I'm direct, I do try to be polite. I have observed there are far too many editors on Wikipedia who take offence at comments I and others make. Usually this is because they read into a comment, a totally unintended meaning. Remember text is a crap medium for conveying nuance. What you interpret as sarcasm in all probability was a light hearted or jocular remark. Textual communication is further complicated by cultural differences in the way English is used. For example: An American describing something as quite nice will mean it as a compliment, whereas a Brit is more than likely saying it is crap. If you find yourself here after taking offence at something I've written, breathe, count to ten and assume good faith before posting.
If I've deleted your message, basically that means I've read it and nothing else. I do tend to delete what I regard as niff naff and trivia.
Repeatedly adding the same message to my talk page will simply piss me off and more than likely just be deleted. Refer to WP:3RR, I can delete comments on my own talk page if I like but you don't get to badger me. Per WP:UP#CMT I am perfectly within my rights to remove comments.
If you're asked not to comment here then please respect that and don't.
There are a number of friendly talk page stalkers, who have my permission to remove comments that are unwelcome. If they do so, please respect my wishes and do not revert.
I do not claim to be infallible, occasionally I'll revert something in error.
I've also noticed a tendency when editing on my tablet to occasionally hit Rollback by accident. If you've spotted what you think is a strange edit of mine, accidental rollback is usually the answer. Feel free to point it out to me but if its rollback I would suggest you just revert; I don't mind people fixing my screw ups.
If you're here because of the revert of a reasonable edit, then may I suggest you first of all ask yourself did you provide an informative edit summary or properly source the edit I reverted. You will find a civil comment will receive a reply (and most likely an apology if warranted).
User:Antandrus some time ago wrote an excellent essay entitled observations on Wikipedia behavior. I suggest it as recommended reading to everyone.
I used to do a lot of work on recent changes patrolling to stop wikifiddling, vandalism and partisan changes to the articles on my watchlist. I don't tend to do that much these days but long ago came to the conclusion that most people who post such crap do so because they think Wikipedia exists to right great wrongs or set the world to rights. Sorry but, newsflash, it doesn't; its an encyclopedia nothing more. A bed rock policy of Wikipedia is to present a neutral point of view. Contrary to popular opinion this does not mean we have to represent ALL views. Rather wikipedia represents the predominant views in the literature, this doesn't mean that we represent fringe material with undue prominence. The more advanced POV pushers decide after reading a bit of policy that sourcing makes their edits bulletproof. Wrong again. Sources have to be reliable, so the conspiracy website or the book by a crank doesn't mean your edit is sacrosanct. If you've come to wikipedia because you're convinced J. Edgar Hoover was the second gunman on the grassy knoll please jog on. I've pointed you to relevant policy about why your edit was removed in what was intended to be a humorous manner, so please don't bug me any further.
The essay WP:DICK is often trotted out on wikipedia, I try not to refer it to myself anymore. Why? It's my observation that most editors who refer to that essay are complete and utter dicks themselves. It's a sad fact that there are still a lot of arseholes editing wikipedia, it's not worth getting into a spat with them as they're determined they will have the last word and thereby "win" the discussion. Sometimes, best thing is to just walk away and as my grannie used to say "let the baby have it's chocolate".

If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia or frequently asked questions. If you need editing help, head here.

File:Mirage IIIEA - FAB.jpg

It'd be great if this could be shown to be free, but it's going to need some further information- date of creation, author and date of publication would be a good start. Also, it's really going to need some evidence that it is PD in the US. J Milburn (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we know the date of creation, but the date of publication is needed, according to {{PD-AR-Photo}}. On what grounds do you believe that anything tagged with the template is PD in the US? It only talks about them being PD in Argentina. J Milburn (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation didn't. Just because something is PD in Argentina, does not mean that it is PD in the US. J Milburn (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Wee Curry Monster. You have new messages at Dave1185's talk page.
Message added 19:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Langus (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian casualties caused by ISAF and US Forces in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

I've just blocked 166.205.137.54 (talk · contribs) as an obvious sock and semi-protected the article for a while, but this edit does seem to be in accordance with the source (which says that the operation occurred 'yesterday'), so I've left it. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

I mistakenly did not use your current username on the Gib talk page. Sincere apologies - it was an honest slip, which I fixed immediately. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 20:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ps I hope you noticed, for the history section, I'm proposing to (re)move all detail about the battle, including mention of San Roque. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 20:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

By the way, you're restricted to making "substantive edits" to Gibraltar unless you have posted on Talk:Gibraltar explaining your proposed edit, and 48 hours have elapsed since the time of the posting, and no editor objected to the proposed edit. For the purposes of this restriction: "substantive edit" means any edit that is not purely a typo fix, formatting change, or an exemption to the 3RR rule; "object" includes any expression of opposition to the proposed edit, regardless of the reason behind the opposition. A wholesale revert like this contravenes the restrictions you are under. I'm obviously willing to discuss the edits I made on the talk page, so let's do that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 21:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I'm just trying to dethaw the article from this "disputed" state. Again, I encourage you to work with me on this - at least to help me out by saving me hours of reading old archives (which I'm just not going to waste my time doing, I'm afraid) by pointing out the specific wording you disagree with. If necessary, you can communicate with me on my talk page. I'm not going to go running off and telling tales to AE on you for that. In fact, if we manage to get something done in a collegiate atmosphere, it could even help with them lifting the restrictions on you. So how about it? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, that was not my understanding and it was a mistake on my part. I still object to the removal of that content. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how else to proceed - everything I do there, you revert immediately, and then you refuse to discuss because you say you're under talk page restrictions. Although you're now probably the longest serving editor there, you don't have a veto over changes, and I'm not going to penalise myself by holding back from changes to the article just because you guys managed to get yourselves into this restricted situation. That was your collective fault, not mine - if you'd taken a leave of absence, like I did, you wouldn't be in this situation. I can only repeat, I'm willing to work with you, on our talk pages if necessary, but not if everything starts with "no you musn't make any changes full stop". For example, please tell me specifically what it is you object to by me moving that content, not just that you object to it. It's impossible to have a meaningful back and forth otherwise. Also, I have to say, I don't understand why you are complaining about these edits. Once upon a time you were complaining vociferously about San Roque and that UN List! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about if I add back instead the proposal on the talk page? Would that be enough to remove the NPOV tag? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are willing to (1) let me remove the tag at the top of the article and to place it only on the sections you feel are NPOV, which if I understand you correctly are the history and the pol/gov sections, and (2) if you set up the sandbox with your proposed initial wording which - if posted - would mean no NPOV tags at all on the article, then OK - you have a deal. If you deliver on those, I will revert my changes, remove the NPOV tag at the top, and then we can work together in the sandbox. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 00:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only asked you to set up the sandbox with an initial proposal that would make you happy (seems fair - you suggested the sandbox) and to move the NPOV tag only to the sections you actually believe to be NPOV (seems fair - I'm not asking you to remove the tags completely), and on that basis I would then revert my changes which you're so unhappy about while we work together. If you aren't even prepared to those two things though, in return for me reverting, it doesn't bode well for our ability to work together on this. So what's it to be? As I've said before, I'm not under any editing restrictions, so the ball is in your court - either work with me on this, or I'll do it alone (or in conjunction with other editors who wish to join in who aren't restricted). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 15:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History Section NPOV

Can I assume you're now OK with having no NPOV tag in the history section of an unspecified article? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not jump to conclusions, read first

No sockpuppetry is not the case, do not jump to that conclusion on this one particular occasion, sorry about before, I didn't know then. I already know you will catch and delete it, because it is on your watchlist, so I will not hide it from you, this is not the map of marie byrd land nor flag of new swabia, I am working on contributing images to our free encyclopedia, I am curious to see if this particular image might be acceptable or not to stay, I have uploaded this under my account, but changed the page under my sisters account, so I could have time enough to publish this note, because I know how much perfection on this page means to you, this is my last attempt to be a part of it, I will never bring back our previous edit war, besides I guess since I added that micronational map I have already contributed, but this is your decision, keep or revert to the previous map, Im just trying to help. — Phoenix500 (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2011 (PDT)

Skirmish at Top Malo House

Ok, what bizzare reason have you got for not wanting to say that the Skirmish at Top Malo House was a British victory ? It was, fair and square. The Argentines were defeated and therefore the British had the victory!

In the case of the Skirmish at Top Malo House there cannot be any argument over who won. It was a clear British victory.mjgm84 (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GERBIL

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For being a sanity checker as well as being an editor with NPOV constantly in mind. Good job~! Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

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

WP:VERIFY

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

I see no message. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was distracted by the ANI. It is there now, I apologize for the delay. Colincbn (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Declaring interests

Thanks - I'm not with Sealed PR anymore - should I declare an interest for being an Islander?? Still getting the hang of this - cheers Lisa Lisawatson69 (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your OPPORTUNITY to either oppose or support Qwyrxian in his bid to become an administrator...

Hi, I understand you recently had some dealings with Qwyrxian, and I think, in doing so, you have the unique vantage point of telling us about whether you think he is qualified to become an administrator. So, I would like to hear what you have to say about Qwyrxian, and here's your chance to do that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Qwyrxian. CHEERS! Diligent007 (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 75: / Line 75: @@
 Thanks -  I'm not with Sealed PR anymore - should I declare an interest for being an Islander?? Still getting the hang of this - cheers Lisa [[User:Lisawatson69|Lisawatson69]] ([[User talk:Lisawatson69|talk]]) 21:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
+== Your OPPORTUNITY to either oppose or support Qwyrxian in his bid to become an administrator... ==
+Hi, I understand you recently had some dealings with Qwyrxian, and I think, in doing so, you have the unique vantage point of telling us about whether you think he is qualified to become an administrator.  So, I would like to hear what you have to say about Qwyrxian, and here's your chance to do that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Qwyrxian. CHEERS! [[User:Diligent007|Diligent007]] ([[User talk:Diligent007|talk]]) 16:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)