User talk:Wee Curry Monster

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia as of September 29, 2012.

Home     E-mail

——————————————— Wee Curry Monster's Talk Page ——————————————— Please note that it is 5:11 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.

Archives     Write

“ Many people are like garbage trucks. They run around full of garbage, full of frustration, full of anger, and full of disappointment. As their garbage piles up, they look for a place to dump it. And if you let them, they’ll dump it on you. So when someone wants to dump on you, don’t take it personally. Just smile, wave, wish them well, and move on. Believe me. You’ll be happier. --THE LAW OF THE GARBAGE TRUCK ”

To all the garbage trucks I've offended unwittingly, I just want to...

1.) Smile.

2.) Wave.

3.) And wish you well.

4.) Bye... I'm moving on !

Have a nice day !

Running with scissors is too dangerous for Wikipedia!

A Ban is NOT a Block

A Ban is not a block. But, if you break the imposed sanction you could be. You could just agree to the sactions, still "retire" (temporarily) and communicate with a mentor about ways to avoid editing when there is a conflict. There is a mentor program at Wikipedia. This is what I did and whether my mentor knew it or not, he helped.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The number 42 is the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything, calculated by an enormous supercomputer over a period of 7.5 million years........unfortunately no one remembers what the question was.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a lot like the Criminal Justice System in the UK, it tries so hard to be fair to the offender it often punishes the victim instead. I don't confuse the law with justice, nor do I respect it anymore and I've really lost any respect I had left for the project. As you pointed out, this isn't a hassle free environment but those making it unpleasant keep getting away with it. I mean really why do we bother, you might as well let the bastards get their own way. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The question is "What do you get if you multiply 9 x 6?" Ans: 42. I like Douglas Adams but Kafka is better at understanding wikipedia, its Kafkaesque when they invent a crime to charge you with when you didn't break the rules.

Unroll your towel. Take a break. Everyone needs a rest now and then. A temp ban is not the end of the world.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is just fucking stupid. You just had to walk away from the ANI and let it wind down (like we used to do at WQA), but that's gone because it "wasn't effective." Now the so-called "Civil POV" pushers win and we've lost a decent content editor. Hopefully the retirement is temporary. Nobody Ent 17:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Rest, then come back

Wee, I know you are tired of the one year harassment and of the verdict at the ANI. I hope you will rest and then come back very soon. Many other good editors have become discouraged and found a short rest results in reconsideration and a comeback as an editor. I hope this happens with you.

Wikipedia is far from perfect and I think that many editors consider retirement at one time or another. Most of them are temporarily exhausted by the various injustices and come back. You are an important content editor and Wikipedia cannot afford to lose editors like you. Troublemakers are aplenty but good editors are rare and leaving at an alarming rate.

Rest, then come back. Wikipedia needs you. Mugginsx (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• WCM, I concur with Mug, Nobody and the mad scientist on this one, you should have just walked away and let someone handle it. All you had to do was to trust that things would be taken care of and that other concerned but uninvolved Admin(s) would come up with a better solution to help with the problem, instead of you fighting a lonely battle against a tag-team, eh? Anyway, a short break would do you some good to clear up your mind and I really hope to see you back here again, soon. Cheers and best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 01:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You are right, Muggins, when you say that Wikipedia cannot afford to lose editors like Curry Monster. But at the same time it's driving editors like Curry Monster away by refusing to back them when they find themselves fighting to ensure that articles respect basic core policies that are supposed to be part of the encyclopædia's values.

Curry Monster has been fundamental to the development of Falklands articles over the course of the last five years and has played a crucial role in maintaining their neutrality. He's given an huge amount to this project, and his expertise combined with the value he puts on neutrality will be nigh-on impossible for the encyclopædia to replace. The fact that someone seriously proposed topic-banning him from Falklands topics is a massive slap in the face. Basically, it's a message that all the effort that he's put into the project is not just not valued, but actually considered a problem! Should we really be surprised by his reaction? I'm not.

It shouldn't be a matter of walking away from ANI and letting it wind down. If that's the best possible outcome in a case like this, then that demonstrates quite how far Wikipedia has lost control of its disruptive editors. And it's not like this is the first time we've had a similar failure by ANI to back those who seek to uphold policy, even in the Falklands arena. Not by a long shout.

Wikipedia is rapidly losing its good content editors. In this particular fiasco, I think we've seen a pretty good illustration of why. Kahastok talk 17:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand at all the way that ANI [[1]] was closed. Among other things, there is a massive strikethrough which I cannot attribute to any editor in the the edit history at time of closing. It was all very strange. I did the "partial" strikethrough insofar as my conversation with Amadscientist but it was very small and did not include the Massive Strikethrough which no one had the right to do to my mind and within my understand of Wikipedia guidelines.

I think it is also insulting to offer Wee a Topic ban when he spent years doing such extremely fine work on those articles. That is wiki for you sometimes - treat the good editors like trash and the trash like good editors. Mugginsx (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, much appreciated, but I'm not putting as much effort in. I will remain effectively retired but may pop in from time to time. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: AustralianRupert on artillery in South Australia, and Nick-D on Venice's empire Op-ed: Nick-D on the "Kokoda: Beyond the Legend" conference

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; milestone for the Fortifications task force; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2012/Hawkeye7 on mission command Op-ed: The ed17 on how The Bugle could be improved

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 03:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Result of your appeal against the May, 2011 Gibraltar restriction

The restriction against you and three other editors on the Gibraltar article has been lifted on a trial basis. Please see this result. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Political development in modern Gibraltar, Wee Curry Monster!

Wikipedia editor Theopolisme just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Really enjoyed reading your three recent articles... keep it up!

To reply, leave a comment on Theopolisme's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Good to see you back

Hey man. Looks like you've been working hard in the background anyways... Thanks for your contributions! :) --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 23:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi WCM, sorry I couldn't answer your call. You caught me on holiday in Barcelona with limited internet access. Everything OK now? --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 00:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the update. I've been meaning to read your article in detail for any copyedits it may need so I'll look out for any additions I feel are inappropriate at the same time. --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 12:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Political development in modern Gibraltar at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

That is an impressive article out of nowhere. Are you in Gib? If so then I guess you know Gibmetall77 but there are new active editors, photographers, supporters who you might like to meet. If you look at the project page then you will see the list of 100 plaques that we intend to mount. Thanks for the contribution Victuallers (talk) 11:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi WCM, sorry to hear about your issue with Arbcom. If it still hurts then maybe better to keep cool. If you do decide to return then there are quieter places than here at the moment.... although we'd be pleased to have you. Obviously we are trying to avoid politics which is why we have not confined ourselves to the Gib borders - best Victuallers (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Old hands

I really don't like it when old hands feel rejected. Don't let them make you feel that way, there are probably hundreds of editors that smile every time they see your handle. Rich Farmbrough, 00:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC).

• Aye~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Political development in modern Gibraltar

Hello! Your submission of Political development in modern Gibraltar at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cambalachero (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Fresh input needed

• See Operation Sea Lion : The Sandhurst Wargame, unpolished gem here. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 02:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Wee Curry Monster. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel_66, AustralianRupert, and Nick-D look at ships, soldiers, and railways Op-ed: Nick-D on navigating the FA and A-Class review processes

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Retired tags in your userspace

Please will you remove these tags, as you're clearly not retired - it's rather confusing. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. Good luck, whatever you choose to do. --Dweller (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Little Englander

Hi Wee Curry Monster

I seek a public apology from you for stating that I called you a "Little Englander" a term which you find insulting. This apology can be posted on one of the Talk pages where you make the allegation. If no such apology is forthcoming, I will be taking the matter further.

I have always suspected that you were Scots - a few years ago you included the word "Scotsman" in your signature. I have respected this and have never, repeat never, suggested that you were English. The exact wording that I used was "The use of the metric system has a number of political overtones - many Eurosceptic and "Little Englanders" use imperial units of measure as a "badge of honour". This sentence does not in any way suggest that the only people to use the imperial system are "Little Englanders" or "Eurosceptics" .

Martinvl (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If I believed for one second that I had genuinely misunderstood your point, I would apologise in a heart beat. However, I see no need to apologise, that remark was clearly aimed at me and I took great offense. It was designed to denigrate the opinion of those holding a view contrary to your own. If you don't wish to give offense, don't use offensive language to address others. I do not find your explanation in the least convincing and to be frank your demand for an apology absurd. If you wish to make a fool of yourself by taking this further, please do, but I suggest you watch out for a WP:PETARD. If you wish discussions to be more cordial, don't be so deliberately provocative and don't come to my talk page demanding an apology.

And titling a thread "Little Englander", really thats just rubbing salt in the wound. I have the impression you've done that deliberately. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Please look up Little Englander. You will find that there is probably a lot of common ground between the "Little Englanders" (as described in the article) and the Eurosceptics. Again I repeat - this was not aimed at you personally - that is not my way of working. Martinvl (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

Thank you for the gratitude. This is the first wiki-mediation that has worked out good for me, but I think that it ultimately all comes down to the people in the discussion. Even while the two sides have conflicts of opinion, the sandbox work demonstrates that (in the end) both can be reasonable about how to build a good encyclopedia. I wish that I could say the same about other Wikipedians.

• With regards to the e-mail you sent me, I have read it and I have a similar conclusion of it. This is the information that should go as the second paragraph of the Sov. Disp. section. As it currently stands, the section has a "time gap" from 1816 to 1945. So the problem is not of where to include it, but rather that of how to include it.

Nonetheless, I think that any further major changes to the Sov. Disp. section should be postponed for a while. The current section effectively presents the UK and Argentine positions in summary. The main article (Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute) is, by its nature, doomed to be controversial for eternity. As long as the dispute is contained within that article, everything else should be good. Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Why?

I would like an explanation as to why you deleted my message to EdJohnston. You have provided no reason, and thus I reverted your arbitrary deletion.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Simon Harley on British battleships and Nick-D on the French Resistance Interview: Five editors discuss some less-represented areas of military history Op-ed: Ian Rose looks back on 2012

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion and revert on my talkpage

Could you please explain why you removed my reply to another editor on my talkpage? I do appreciate your reverting yourself, but I am still curious as to why you were deleting to begin with. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Revert on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Why did you revert my comment? Was this a misclick or other mistake? Reyk _YO! 21:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Political development in modern Gibraltar

Hi WCM, I'm reviewing your DYK nomination of Political development in modern Gibraltar. It's a very good article and it fills an important gap - well done. However, the intro is a bit short. Do you think you could write a longer lead for the article that would summarise its content better? (WP:LEAD has some useful advice). Prioryman (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, I've noticed a few referencing errors. References 16, 31 and 32 are coming up as not pointing to any citations. Could you please fix this? Prioryman (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Political development in modern Gibraltar at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Prioryman (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a reminder that Template:Did you know nominations/Political development in modern Gibraltar is still outstanding. If the issues raised aren't resolved soon, I'm afraid it can't be accepted for DYK. Prioryman (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstandings about this article - I still think it's very good. I've signed it off now and, given the age of the nomination, I've brought it to the attention of one of the DYK maintainers so that it can get onto the Main Page soon. You might also like to have a look at my expansion of History of Gibraltar, which I'm aiming to nominate for GA status soon. Prioryman (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

English/British/Anglo-Dutch Capture of Gibraltar

Forgive me for incorrectly editing the article, for I had assumed that England had assumed actual administration of the island while the Dutch only assisted in the capture, rather than the Dutch-English interim administration of the island that seems to have taken place until it was formally ceded to the newly-formed Great Britain some time after 1710. I would say, however, that it was the English and Dutch, not Britain who captured the island in 1703, as your revision suggested. --Breatannach (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Self-determination. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 17:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Just for Laughs

I forgot to mention this to you. What makes it funny is your inclusion, dear Aramis. Why Richelieu is interested in your head this time around is beyond me, but his secret diary may have more than a sufficient answer. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO Wee Curry Monster talk 22:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Mongol naval power Op-ed: Crisco 1492 on war films

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries

I would like to say thanks for inviting me to comment. Its certainly a new experience. Cheers Wee.Irondome (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I know you hate this stuff like the plague, but sod it, cut me some slack just this once. For inviting me to participate in a stimulating and highly useful discussion which is valuable for my WP experience. Cheers pal Irondome (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Falklands' Spanish name pronunciation

I don't find it so unnecessary that it shouldn't be there in any hypothesis. English speakers may not know that Spanish b/v after ell is kind of an in-between of the two (unlike dee and wye, that are always a denti-alveolar stop [d̪] and a post-alveolar [dʒ] or palatal [ɟʝ ~ ɟj] affricate respectively after ell, but in other circunstances reminds one of an English voiced th or in-between English y and French g), or that Spanish ess assimilates the voice of the following phoneme, unlike the English one that assimilates the voice of the preceding one (so they won't know where to use whether [s] or [z], IF they know Spanish has [z]). Many users like this kind of information; I understand your point, so much that I purposefully reduced the "Spanish pronunciation" tag before the transcription, but still I think it would be good to have it there. Perhaps a footnote using the wikireference code will please both Greeks and Trojans? 177.65.49.210 (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I seriously doubt the usefulness of the information as, in general, we don't have alternative language names in wikipedia articles. The English wikipedia does have an exception on Falkland's topics. The Spanish article equivalent is linked, so I would imagine its only one mouse click away anyhow and I don't see how that would be different from a footnote. Perhaps the discussion should have been at Talk:Falkland Islands. Un abrazo Wee Curry Monster talk 16:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh, sorry for anything... 177.65.49.210 (talk) 07:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I tend not to archive niff naff but genuine messages I do. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

FI Current dispute new source

Wee would you mind nipping over and giving an opinion as to the suitability of a source I dug up? We may be geeting closer to a compromise here on the whole section, but it would be radically reduced and retitled. The new source would provide the citational core of the section. Gaba seems ok with this. Cheers Irondome (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

As I commented it appears an WP:SPS? Wee Curry Monster talk 23:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Doesnt look like it. Its a Canadian think tank type entity dealing with geo political issues, so it seems respectable in terms of the WP criteria you mentioned. Irondome (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with what its saying but I tend to put personal opinions to one side in evaluating sources. I am suspicious it wouldn't be considered a reliable source for wikipedia. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Its been used in about 4 WP articles as far as I can see. Cited in a Naff River page, a US issues page, and 1 more (dont have the pages to hand at mo) It doesnt seem to have been challenged as a source. I dunno, but should we go with it, and if its challenged down the line, re evaluate accordingly. Anything to break this source impasse. it really doesnt appear to be too outrageous as a source.Irondome (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:RSN? Then there is no problem if confirmed as a WP:RS. Suggest you ask for advice on your own source, rather expect some lobbying that will deter outside comment otherwise. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. Then I will post a query there tomorrow and get this sorted. You are right, best to keep this query seperate from the main issues, and take ownership as the inintiator of this material. Cheers Irondome (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I see the result at RSN was favourable and it is a way forward. However, it seems to me that Gaba p has very much disrupted my attempt to use WP:DR at WP:NPOVN. I'll support your proposal in talk but I still think the current section has to go or there will be no possibility of moving forward while Gaba p can use disruptive tactics to force his edits into the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The new material forms the framework of a radically reworked and reduced section or its gone. Simples Irondome (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree 100%, Gaba p, it appears does not. Hope your home situation sorts itself and apologies if this has added to your wikistress. I appreciate your input. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources

"[I]n general newspapers and the media are considered lower quality sources."

I'm sorry, but that is an absolutely ludicrous statement. The mainstream media, for all its faults, is Wikipedia's main well of secondary sourcing. Please read WP:RS. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Nah

Its looking ok. Be over in a bit Irondome (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Bad

I urge you to self-revert this immediately. I am so surprised you did it, I would not be alarmed to learn it was a mistake. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, it was a mistake but I'm now unable to correct it. I left an apology on his talk page. In future please feel free to revert my mistakes, obvious mistakes no one minds. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 01:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Program/Tool?

Hello there. First, I would like to thank you for your outstanding work, as most OrBat graphs I've seen on Wikipedia are your work. Now If you would be so kind as to tell me which program(s) you use for creating them, I would appreciate it very much.

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.222.78.50 (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty_dispute".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 13:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Notice DRN Just letting you know I've requested assistance at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute. Sorry I couldn't find the official template. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Oh, I see its automatic. Never mind then. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)