User talk:Narson

London Bus route 79, 83, 224 and 297.jpg Deletion files

I uploaded these files but you think the quality is poor. It is actually, because I took it with my O2 X2i Mobile, which has poor camera and only 1.3MP I think. I want to try to make these pictures again but with a good camera. (with good quality).

AimalJan —Preceding unsigned comment added by AimalJan (talk • contribs) 17:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Mosley

What do you think about including a link to Alan Donnelly, will a reference to http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3411_3726064,00.html be good enough? Possibly the place I added it a reference to isn't the best but in light of Jacky Stuarts latest comments http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3213_4056632,00.html I thought it seemed relevant. Information on Alan Donnelly seems hard to come by on wikipedia and he isn't mentionedin the Mosley article but apparently he's now Mosley's official representative at Grand Prix's now. I realise there are lots of POV to avoid! Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.173.86.208 (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

FPaS RFC

As a participant in the recent discussion at WP:ANI, I thought you should be informed of the new RFC that another user has started regarding FPaS's behavior.

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Future Perfect at Sunrise

Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 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) 23:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No Worries

No worries, I'd said my piece and intended to leave it alone. You watch out for WP:3RR mind. Happy editing :-). Justin talk 20:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It looked like you were sailing close and 4 reverts isn't a right remember. You have to watch these POV types don't drag you down with them. Justin talk 21:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

86.xx.xx

Hello Narson. I'm growing concerned with that IP's behaviour at British Isles & his/her refusal to register in (though it's not required). GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know what a gobbie is. Perhaps, it's better that I don't. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Giggle giggle; IP 86.xxx.xxx is too entertaining to have blocked. I'd say let him/her rant. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, do not block him. Audiatur et altera pars Bogorm (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The thought never crossed my mind, Borgorm. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite true. IMHO the page movement proposal was DOA. PS- I think this is my third British Isles page movement discussion. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The IP must be a speech writer. He/she is quite good at it; I'm impressed. GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've chosen (hours ago) to leave the discussion at British Isles. IP 86.xxx.xxx? has pushed me over the edge (I congratulate him/her). GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I've had better days. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

He he. Ironically, I'm an athiest & a republican. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Garling

They can only be speedied as orphaned if they're non-free- this will probably be left lying around on the off-chance that he becomes notable. I don't actually know what the procedure is with things like that. J Milburn (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you urgently help Milhist please?

We've had a rather large bombshell dropped on us. The Wikipedia editorial team are aiming to release a version of Wikipedia on CD/DVD in time for the end of year holiday season. They've provided us with a list of 1333 Milhist articles they intend including.

The problem is that the quality of these articles varies considerably.

We've put together review page listing all the articles, in twenty-five article worklists. I'm hoping that 15-20 trusted editors can work through the list, weedying out problem articles and identifying suitable versions for release. The work is as far away from a tagging and assessing drive as you can imagine though, for convenience and ease of use, we've closely followed the traditional Milhist drive format.

This is, at the moment, an invitation-only review. The reason is that time is short and we can't afford too many mistakes. I'm only contacting experienced editors who performed very well indeed in the last two Milhist drives. I guess that working through a worklist of twenty-five articles will take between one and three hours to do. We're aiming to get the preliminary work done by next Sunday, so it's urgent too.

I do hope you can help but – if it's not too much trouble – if you are unable to participate at the moment, would you please let me know on my talk page? Thank you for your time, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Pacman_Jones#Requested_move_to_Adam_Jones_.28football.29_revisited

I would like to solicit feedback concerning moving this to Adam Jones (football). It makes sense to me, but is there consensus? Please opine in the section of the article talk page. Cheers, Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Generalmesse is back

Cheers can you also add Military history of Italy during World War II‎ as another favourite for sock puppetry. Oh and thanks for the Falklands War revert, can't understand that guy's agenda, for several edits he insisted on adding some weirdly wrong information to the infobox. Justin talk 16:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Israel Navy

Hi Narson! I have replied to your comment on the Israel Navy discussion, and would like your input, if possible (assuming you were not already watching the article). See Israeli navy#Name of this article. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 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) 23:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi there Narson. Just to let you know that I have removed vandalism over at Talk:Gibraltar, and as your recent edit was related only to that vandalism, I have removed it too. Hope that's ok with you. Regards, --Gibmetal 77^talk 19:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The last to ever sail in Gibraltar waters were Barbary pirates led by Barbarossa in September 1540 ;o). --Gibmetal 77^talk 19:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

USS Liberty

Discuss? It has been discussed ad infinitum, and we still have comments such as:

"...what is the basis for the removal of sourced material under WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. What is specifically in error? CasualObserver'48 (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)"

Note that this request has not been answered.

In effect, after discussion by several persons, we still have the question of why the entries are removed and why are they perceived as being against WP:Undue and WP:FRINGE. And we still have no answer to that question. (I don't believe one will be forthcoming.)

However, I am a patient man and see no reason why I can't wait for, say, 7 days.

The 7 days is to give time to those willing to discuss the item further. If more time appears to be needed as evidenced by a lively discussion continues, it will be given. Do understand however, that I do not plan to allow a 'discussion' to provide for infinite delay.WorldFacts (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As per your Liberty talk page request. The full name of the Moorer commision as entered into the Congressional record is "FINDINGS OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO THE ISRAELI ATTACK ON THE USS ‘‘LIBERTY,’’ THE RECALL OF MILITARY RESCUE SUPPORT AIRCRAFT WHILE THE SHIP WAS UNDER ATTACK, AND THE SUBSEQUENT COVER-UP BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT". The short form of the title I bolded. I also found this link which mentions the commission http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6690425.stm. Enjoy Wayne (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

re: Camel Corps Express

That deserves my very own "thinking completely out of the box", utterly surreal, "this is not a fish" barnstar. (Congratulations! You're the first recipient!

		The Ceci n'est pas un poisson barnstar
		For the deliriously inspired nomination of "Camel Corps Express" as the new name for the military history newsletter. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if not actually greatest, certainly one of the oddest :) I see there's an article on the WWI reincarnation. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Gibraltar Media

When I'm not engaged in wikipedia, people pay me for writing software, designing websites, and taking photographs. All these things are done on a professional basis, I sell my work and some times give things away - the product of my labours are thus not necessarily mine legally.

Gibnews.net belongs to a Gibraltar company. If you read the terms and conditions of use, its pretty plain where the content comes from and if the GoG publishes a press release using it, that has equal standing to any on their website, despite what some might claim.

you might like to read and make a comment on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Gibnews.net_and_User:Gibnews

I may change my username to something less likely to confusion as to my intentions, like Admiral_Rooke or G17900. --Gibnews (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Gib

Nah, editing while slightly drunk, probably not the best of ideas. Justin talk 09:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Tsk, national stereotypes, you'll be talking about "rebellious scots to crush" next and I don't think thats going to happen. Justin talk 20:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there!

Hi Narson, If you don't mind, I am adding my revision of your suggested intro to the East India Company page for now. I am doing this only because some people have begun to add citation needed tags etc. The discussion about the appropriate wording will of course continue on the talk page and the consensus there will form the final version. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

South Georgia

I really didn't want to revert but the way he chose to introduce it was against MOS. I'm sure it will be a useful resource but the best way to introduce it would be to use it as a reference and then include it as an external link. Justin talk 22:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit war at USS Liberty incident

Hi. Though mindful of WP:DTTR, I want to point out that the situation at USS Liberty incident has moved beyond simple content dispute into the neighborhood of edit war. I've advised User:WorldFacts of the WP:3RR rule; he has gone over it, but had not been notified. I expect that you're already familiar with it. But in the heat of the moment, you might have lost sight of the fact that you're skirting a bit close. I hope that the group of you can resolve the matter through discussion at the talk page. I can see that it's quite heated. (P.S. I watchlisted the article on dealing with the copyright concerns at Moorer Report. Prior to reviewing that, I had no familiarity with the issue.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It does look complex. :/ Since the reversions are ongoing, I've temporarily permanently protected the article. Given what you say about the length of the dispute, it doesn't seem likely that a 24 hour moratorium is likely to resolve the matter, but perhaps it'll allow time for more discussion at the article's talk page. Good luck resolving the matter. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The book chapter does speak to it most directly. I'd be a whole lot more comfortable with it, though, if the chapter had not been written by Alison Weir, whose If Americans Knew seems from its Wikipedia article like a POV publication. (I am utterly unfamiliar with it otherwise.) Less partisan sources would obviously be much superior to sources that seem predisposed to a position, any position. Good luck with your sourcing search. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit War at War of 1812

Thanks for the warning. Just trying to get to a non US NPOV bias without creating pro British Bias. I had initially started the talk page so this very topic could be discussed, so hopefully people will discuss it and some kind of compromise will come about. Definitely needs more non US users for their opinion.

USS Liberty

Yes, whenever new, single issue editors show up, defending each other on very narrow points, it is quite suspicious. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Though they have a similar POV and MO, they seem different enough that a RFCU isn't warranted at this time. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite obvious this is being discussed on some off-Wikipedia forum, where people are being encouraged to come here and insert the Moorer report into the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, good edit regarding the Moorer report. That amount of material and placement seems about right. Well done, but let's hope it sticks! Jayjg ^(talk) 23:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd be pretty drunk but you being a soft southern softie would be risking alcoholic poisoning. Justin talk 20:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

USS Liberty

Its been on my watch list for ages, ever since some conspiracy nut posted Invincible conspiracy theory nonsense on the Falklands War and then some anti-semitic nonsense on the Liberty article. BTW Palestineremembered just made an appearance. Ho Hum. Justin talk 15:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Know what you mean, I've thought about it a couple of times but haven't made a start on cleaning the article up because it would only be disrupted. BTW did you notice that ADL source was quite complimentary about Cristol's book. As an aside with your student status do you have access to JSTOR? Justin talk 12:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

JSTOR gives access to a ton of documents in PDF format on a range of topical historical documents. I'm forever finding Falklands references there but then have the frustration of no access. You'll probably find it invaluable with your history degree. Justin talk 12:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You've had basically the same result I got, I can find no credible secondary sources whatsoever. Do you want to make a comment on the talk page re-inforcing that point. Justin talk 20:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't parachute into this article, I have a long term interest in USS Liberty incident. It has to be long term, since we have 10 more years to wait, based on the length of time it took for the 1954 false-flag Lavon affair attack on US assets to be admitted (2005). PR^talk 14:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You can find the findings of the Moorer Commission here.WorldFacts (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

After thinking about it and seeing you got the same treatment, it would probably be better if you filed. I'm tired and cranky, probably not the best frame of mind. Justin talk 00:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: you have 3 USS Liberty sections on your talk page. You may want to consider merging them.

Also, I read the WP:NOT and WP:CONSENSUS as suggested, while the WP:NOT talks about democracy and the fact that the notion of counting the opinions of other Editors - that is - treating them like a vote - is not appropriate vis a vis WP Policies, the one that is more interesting to me is WP:CONSENSUS. Of particular interest to me is the flow chart describing how consensus works. Your method in dealing with the Moorer report entries is always the same: removal. Reaching a consensus this way is impossible - hence the charge of censorship.

You base your removals on WP:FRINGE and/or WP:UNDUE. I have argued, with support from other editors, that WP:FRINGE doesn't apply due to the reputations and ranks of the officers and the fact that one of the authors of the report was an ambassador, hence there is no need to supply a third source - the qualifications of those who conducted the investigation is sufficient to warrant mention of the report on this page. The idea that WP:UNDUE is a valid reason for removal is completely absurd. Every other report listed has some commentary with it and NO third party sources. I even went as far as identifying the Moorer report as an "Independent American Investigation". Even that was 'not acceptable'. The fundamental problem here is that the mention of the most important contents of the Moorer report is only a problem for about 4 editors. Sorry - 4 vs the planet - you loose.

If the Moorer Report were purely a Fringe theory, why is there a link at the bottom of the USS Liberty incident page to it? Is this a link that you now plan to remove? I can't imagine that you didn't know it was there. So, if the link is there, and you have not removed it, for ANY reason, why is quoting text from the report such a crime, in your opinion? I have gone head over heals changing the text, changing the way I write the text and I am getting nowhere, with only 3 or 4 of you. How am I supposed to reach a consensus if you don't even attempt to negotiate. If you unstated intention is simply to remove any mention of this report, It looks like your efforts fail. There are now other editors undoing your undo's of my adds. This report is getting traction. We need to come to some kind of consensus because as far as I and now other editors appear to be concerned, removing the entry is inappropriate.

I believe that it is only salmon who are willing to die while swimming up river. That's fine, we aren't salmon. Personally, I think it best that the rest of us should go with the flow. WorldFactsWP@yahoo.com, if you want a more private conversation. You can't say I'm not trying. WorldFacts (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Just saw your response. We are making progress.

You said you would accept an entry "once the edit is of a good quality..."

1) What would you do to improve the quality?

Please suggest some text which is acceptable to you.

The only requirement I have for acceptability is that it state what is central to the findings of the commission: The belief that the attack was intentional. That is central to the report. Any one with half a brain reading the "Findings of the Investigation" would come to that conclusion. I refuse to have the Moorer report listed, and then have some lame, flimsy 'conclusion' listed as it's outcome. The reason this report is so controversial is PRECISELY because it lays the blame at Israel's feet. But that is not my problem, nor yours. That is simply, using your bold words, the truth, that this report believes is the truth. There are many reports listed on the USS Liberty incident page which claim that it was an accident. Having one report lay the blame at Israels feet is not intrinsically evil. Some of the entries for other reports quote the reports they discuss. Most of the quotes from the Moorer Report are quite explicit. I have chosen several and in all cases, they are deleted. (That, incidently, is why I am so furious. No attempt is made to modify for satisfaction - just deletion. As you can tell, I won't be settling for that, based on the reputation of those involved in doing the investigation.)

So, the ball is in your court - we can debate in your talk space, in mine, or via email. (Incidentally, WorldFactsWP@yahoo.com is NOT my private email address. It is an email address I use ONLY for WP. Create a Yahoo/gmail - whatever - account for ONLY this conversation if you like. I don't want your private email address anymore then you want to provide it. I hadn't made this clear earlier.)

2) You also said "and the source is appropriate,..."

The source is much more difficult. Based on my attempts to negate the WP:FRINGE accusation, I can't find what I would call a 'good enough' article.

I have seen half a dozen articles which say something like "Moorer investigated - performed an independent investigation - was part of an independent team who investigated the incident - part of this investigation was brought up on the hill". Phrases like that.

What I can't find is an article which says explicitly something like "Admiral Moorer, who chaired the Moorer Commission, an independent body which investigated the USS Liberty attack...". In other words, I can't find anything that ties "The Moorer Commission - or the Moorer Investigation to Moorer himself. It seems to be more 'in passing', as if it's 'understood' that this investigation IS the Moorer Investigation. To me, it's obvious - I don't have a problem reading it that way. Certainly, the findings of the commission make that abundantly clear. (I presume you have checked the link I provided you earlier which has the findings - the same one I added above.) It lists those who 'chaired' the commission, and the findings thereof. It's finding an article that has been difficult. I even had to write to the archivist of Stars and Strips to get a PDF of the Page in the newspapers where he wrote an opinion piece. It's not available to the general public online. I had to get it emailed to me. Well - there you go - an OPINION piece by the person who led the commission, Admiral Moorer, doesn't pass muster for some of those who dislike the entry.

Let's tackle your reservations with the entry one at a time. First, let's start with quality text which you will find acceptable. We'll rummage through articles later, once we can agree on the text of the entry.

Lastly, as to personal attacks. I don't want to resort to that. But incessant removals wears one's patience down - and I have been dealing with that for 2 months. We're talking now - let's keep talking. WorldFacts (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Heads up, can you have a look at CasualObersvers latest comment and give me your opinion? Justin talk 12:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the heads up, I'd already asked on WP:AN. I may have thrown the baby out with the bath water on some of those edits. But he removed relevant material again and maybe I'm getting a tadge fed up with the bad faith assumption and constant POV pushing. Justin talk 17:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

For baby insanity see [1], wasn't sure I was getting revert happy. Justin talk 23:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Solveig Gunbjørg Jacobsen

Dear Narson, you might be interested to know that Solveig's article has been proposed for deletion. In my opinion that's an ill-founded idea, same like the suggested merging as several other articles have links to Solveig's one. Best, Apcbg (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 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) 00:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Point taken

re your correction on PR's page. As explained there, I had in mind the large debate that erupted over it earlier, and hadn't noted recent edits. I find this page and many others that are controversial, a headache to edit, let alone to read, and tend to stay away from them after an initial review of the long threads, to form an opinion. Apologies for my phrasing.Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, from another Formula1 fan. This crisis is going to take all of the interesting technology-competitiveness out of it, with the probable uniform engine ruling. The Italian race commentary is virtually monopolized by engineers with a remarkable capacity to explain the course of any one race, and each performance at every section, in terms easily understandable to the layman. Totally off point of course!, but happy to see a shared interest. Regards Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The world financial crisis will resolve these issues, against the big spenders, I should think, irrespective of what individuals wish or think or want.Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

AN/I discussion

Hiya Narson. I'm just suggesting that we don't tar & feather the administrator. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing, the Irelands discussion will (eventually) be heading towards Arbcom. I don't think there's ever gonna be a consensus for moving (to my regret). GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Those 3 articles should be reverted back to Ireland, Ireland (disambiguation) & Republic of Ireland. If they are, I won't dispute it. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the administrator should revert the page moves. The IP's pestering him, isn't helping. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this isn't a good Wiki-time for Sarah777. It's gotta be stressful for her. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Her British or Anglo centric POV charges, don't help. But, whatcha gonna do. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been called a British unionist, Devolutionist & Irish Nationalist, over the years. Not bad, eh? GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how those Ireland articles would've turned out, if British Isles editors were barred from the 'straw polls', taskforces etc. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm confident Ireland & Ireland (island) will remain. As for Ireland (state)? not so confident. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, Ireland (state) should be reverted to Republic of Ireland & then have an RM there. More so, as that article was the most fought over. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted the administrator, Sarah777 & Matt Lewis on this matter. Sorta my 'swan song' advice. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Have no fear. Those articles are gonna remain on my watchlist. I'll be watching, just not squawking. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

My only hope, is that Sarah won't pulverize me. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Just the same, I'm keeping my football helmet on. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Very well, my Army helmet. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

My Baseball batter's helmet? GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

GD's involvement

It was made apparent to me 'bout a week or so, ago', that I have a tendancy to cause mischief/havoc on those articles. I've taken that criticism & used it to reform my behaviour (on those articles). I'm stickin' to it. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hustler

I could barely contain myself when he used a jazz mag for a source. Pardon the pun.... Justin talk 22:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

British Empire

Fetch your own lemsip ya big jessie. I'm sure we can have a cosy little chat about how my mother's family fled Franco's fascist dictatorship. Justin talk 09:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Grandad was an intellectual and was above all that hedonism in the South of France...nah they originally settled doon sooth, then this debonair Scotsman whisked her off her feet. Trials work is 90% boredom waiting for all the safety stuff to be in place. Justin talk 11:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ireland naming dispute compromise proposal

You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, the name Ireland. When one considers the article Republic of Ireland, one could also think of the name Jack. Quite often a fella called Jack, tend's to actually have the name John. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Suez

I'd already suggested a compromise by adding political victory in there, doesn't look like he is interested. He simply reverted before I had a chance to put it in. Justin talk 00:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but when did you say even mention that to me? You reverted it 3 times Justin. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 15:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

USS Liberty

Alan Hart is one of the most knowledgable Britons on the subject of the Middle East, he's reported from and around there for 40 years, specialising in talking to the people involved (including Dayan, though that's not where he gets the claim that Dayan threatened to sink the USS Liberty.

I've added this, which is a careful and balanced republishing of his highly relevant views. I trust you won't simply revert again.

Alan Hart, reporting for ITN in Israel at the time of the Six-Day War writes that Israeli planes directed fire-control radar at the Liberty at about 2200 on the Wednesday night, the 7th. It was a warning - since an hour or so earlier, the U.S. Defense Attache in Tel Aviv had messaged the U.S. Army Communications Centre in Washington. "By telegramme in code the message was that the IDF was planning to attack the Liberty if the ship continued to move closer to the Israeli coast." Hart writes that either "the messages were inadvertently misrouted and delayed" or another possible explanation is that someone deliberately held up the message, believing it to be an act of surrender to Dayan. wrong clip deleted Stephen Green is a third source (highly regarded, 26 times more cited than Cristol) claiming that Israel decided to attack "Sometime in the late afternoon or early evening of June 7, probably just after the routine "move" order was given, the NSA learned, from an intelligence report emanating from the Office of the US Defense Attache in Tel Aviv, that Israel was planning to attack the Liberty if her course was not changed." (All this on top of Assistant Secretary for Defense John Stenbit telling Harvard University in 2003 that the Israelis had warned the United States to move the USS Liberty or they would sink it within 24 hours).

PR^talk 12:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The publishers lack of any reputation is still a bit of a worry there PR. They have no reputation for fact checking or anything else and I don't think such an unknown quanitity is a good source for such a controversial subject, especially when we have just had a paragraph saying the exact same thing. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You're not denying that Alan Hart is a highly knowledgable and trusted commentator. Nor that Stephen Green is highly knowledgable (with none of the serious doubts that swirl around Cristol, for instance). The worth of the information stands or falls by the expertise of the author, not where it's published. (Book and his web-site, see above). With this level of evidence for Israel having threatened to sink the ship, a proper discussion belongs in the article. PR^talk 14:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

We have a paragraph on the claims just before it. Why do we need two? I still remain unconvinced on using material some would consider coming from, at the very least, an incredibly negative (As as much as Alan Hart doesn't appear to be pro-US but he is incredibly anti-Israeli) source as fact, when we have other sources saying much the same (As demonstrated by the previous paragraph) --Narson ~ Talk • 14:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

On Stephen Green....I am assuming we are talking fundementalist protestant Stephen Green? Much ridiculed by all? --Narson ~ Talk • 14:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Alan Hart was there. He's a very trusted individual - he credibly claims that ITN was going to broadcast his 40-second voice piece predicting the attack on Egypt 4 hours before it happened, the only one of 100s of foreign correspondents to be in the know. (This life-time scoop was squeezed out by the crash of two civilian airliners, one in France and one in the UK). Hart's account of Dayan pushing Eshkol aside and seizing the Defence Ministry (a political coup being preferable to a military one) lends depth and background to this knock-down claim that Israel threatened to attack the USS Liberty at around 9.00pm (local time, I think) the evening before it was done. (Of course, this threat by Dayan also makes sense of the otherwise inexplicable but well accepted fact the Liberty was ordered to move away from Israel).

Stephen Green's book "Taking Sides" 1984 is also clearly much better considered than Cristol's "The Liberty Incident". And not just by the "Amazon Reviews" (there are 3, all giving it 5 stars) but by the much more authoritative Google Scholar, giving it a really respectable 26 citations. By comparison, Cristols 2002 book (the one we treat as the only authoritative resource on the subject) gets just 1 citation. The question for you is now becoming - what, other than POV, is stopping us using the real Reliable Sources and writing a good article to them? PR^talk 15:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 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) 17:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Attempt at Mediation

I am attempting to help with the dispute regarding the USS Liberty incident. If you are interested in participating, please add your signature accordingly. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: my apologies

No problem; I've been partly off-wiki due to revision anyway. Ironholds (talk) 11:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

re: ArbCom

Thanks for your kind message. My apologies for the slow response: I decided to take a short wiki-break in an effort to get rid completely of an infection in time for the holidays (says loads about my priorities, huh?). Anyhow, my first love around here is Milhist and I have no intention of letting ArbCom take over my life! Happy holidays! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a bug that's bringing all sorts of secondary infections. Whisky in strong hot tea is very effective: it's doesn't actually get rid of it but it'll soon stop you caring :) Get well soon! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

re: Talk:Scuderia Ferrari‎

Thanks for trying to help me understand the situation at Scuderia Ferrari, Narson. What I just can't seem to get is what to do until there is a GT page? What to do until Enzo's GT efforts are added? Any ideas? Timoleon (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion Narson, and I'm still a bonehead! You said 'Just add it to the scuderia ferrari page under a new section;' Add what? Timoleon (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

And there isn't any Scuderia Ferrari GT info to add which brings us full circle I think. Timoleon (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that has been suggested many times. I don't know if I'm stubborn or stupid, but I still don't get it... Suppose no one writes about Enzo's GT efforts for the foreseeable future; what is to be done until then? Timoleon (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

In my view, it doesn't seem like a 'disambiguation' issue, but an issue analogus to my General Motors hypothetical. I know I must be missing something; I usually am. And my lack of understanding stuff almost always gets me in trouble. Still, what is the problem with letting the reader know that Scuderia Ferrari was deeply involved in GT racing; that the article entitled 'Scuderia Ferrari' is in fact NOT about Scuderia Ferrari, but ONLY their F1 efforts? Timoleon (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.

I don't often meet folks with the patience you showed me regarding the Scuderia Ferrari article Narson; I am appreciative and a little humbled. I hope you like the solution DH85.. came up with as I do. You, in particular, made my first real foray into Wikipedia editing an enlightening and engaging experience. I had heard horror stories about tyrannical cabals controlling Wikipedia articles, and you have shone them to be false. Thank you for giving me another reason to like people! Timoleon (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 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) 04:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Meetup

For your interest Wikipedia:Meetup/Birmingham_3. Majorly talk 19:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Channel Islands

You reverted the IP editor's addition of the wreck of HMS Victory as unsourced and location unknown. The whole article is "unsourced" in that it is impossible to tell which info has been taken from the book source quoted and which is from elsewhere. I've readded the info on HMS Victory and referenced it. Mjroots (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

A little something for you...

		The Lonely Geek Barnstar
		This barnstar is in honor of your depressing, unloved presence on IRC on Valentine's Day, 2009. Roses and kisses work for some, but you, noble Wikipedian, have important things to discuss on the internet with people you barely know who you'll probably never meet. Here's to you! FlyingToaster 21:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Editing

Has nobody told you? We cockneys don't sleep, how did you think Britain conquered the world in the 18th and 19th centuries? Then we have ONE lousy nap in 1914, wake up after 30 years of good sleep and find you brummie bastards have messed everything up. Ironholds (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well whatever the armed forces say our navy was screwed from the 1890s (or at least it was easily possible to predict we would be screwed). Anyway, I'm off to my uni library to hand back some books on Denning and whatnot; talk later. Ironholds (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ireland dab

Narson, that seems reasonable. I guess a neutral pov can help! Sarah777 (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ion Antonescu

What I stated several times, is that the IHRC final report would not be the most neutral source for this highly controversial article due to certain reasons. I never said not to use it because it is made by ethnic Jews, nor I want to make Antonescu blameless for his mistakes during his leadership. All I want to do, and I stated this several times, is to create an accurate and neutral image of his political and military career (fact confirmed by my edits made today to the article). --Eurocopter (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

Actually, my last edit merely added tags to Eurocopter's version. Though I honestly believe that the problem his edits pose should either way surface on top of any other incident. Dahn (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Thank you for your input, and I look forward to any further comments you may have on the matter. Dahn (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews

Dear Narson, please excuse my so belated response due to some pressing engagements. If you believe I could be of any help to your contribution in Wikinews, I am prepared to give it a try. Best, Apcbg (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Great Father Ted impression

On Friday, y'mean? Ironholds (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

How long

How long did it take you to notice the edit on Falkland Wars? Are you spending hours on PC everyday just to find out who edited pages?--hnnvansier (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

C-Class

It is great to have someone else who shares my same belief (that we don't need the C-Class), but It seems as if the C-Class issue is about even at the moment. This should all turn out right (but it is always good when it turns out the way you want it :) At the end one side will be forced to bow to the consensus of the WikiProject while the other side shall watch over. (Hopefully it shall be us watching over :) Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 16:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

c class referendum

i noticed you voted against adoption of c class, with the comment 'Unnecessary and creates more work with zero benefit to the reader'. I don't know if you have seen the comments that it is generally propsed to adopt C class with an automatic assessment based upon the B checklist. This means there would be virtually no work in implementing the class, everything would be automatic. As to zero benefit, I would draw your attention to the article statistics. There are currently 20,000 mil hist articles which fail the ref check point, 10,000 failing coverage, 5,000 structure, 5000 support, 1000 grammar. So there are 10,000 assessed as at least B class coverage but otherwise failing. For most people these articles are perfectly useful sources of information and ought to be recognised as such. There is a benefit to readers, those who are interested, to know what we think of the general quality of content in the article they are currently using. There are 10,000 articles in this currently non-category, compared to only 3500 marked B, and 1000 in the higher grades. Inevitably more people are relying upon those currently lumped together as start grade articles than any other category, thus getting no help from us as to whether we think the article they are reading has decent content, or not. Sandpiper (talk) 08:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Never been used

Narson. The emphasise you are using has always been used as extra info to remind people who the person is on about. No WP article ever uses them. Chubbennaitor 21:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Use '''bold''' then. It's confusing when the media use it as what I've explained. Chubbennaitor 22:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Nearly everything you write is for 15+. You proposed to make the article look less colourful and appealing. I don't mean to be coming across strongly ut you've hit on an article I watch like a guardian. Chubbennaitor 20:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

We're writing an encyclopaedia here. If you want something for children go to the Simple English Wikipedia. Ironholds (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I've already said that no child will know it exists unless they have an over viewed knowledge of wikipedia. Chubbennaitor 21:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

retiring

By. i've just had enough. Chubbennaitor 21:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you very much for your support for me in the Military History coordinator elections. I am honored that I was elected to my new position of assistant coordinator, and hope that I can satisfactorily fulfill the community's expectations of me as a coordinator. – Joe N 01:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

		Milhist Coordinator elections
		I wish to thank you for your gracious support during my bid for a position as Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject in the recent March 2009 elections. I was initially apprehensive to stand for election as I was unsure on how well I would be received, but I am pleasantly surprised and delighted to have been deemed worthy to represent my peers within the project. I assure and promise you, I will strive to do my upmost to justify your trust in myself with this esteemed position. Thank you, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Soldiers of the 4th Australian Division crossing a duckboard track through Chateau Wood, Ypres on 29 October 1917.

Thank you

	I seem to have drawn a crowd of support!
	I'm honored to have been elected as a coordinator of the WikiProject Military history and most sincerely thank you for your vote of support. I will endeavor to fulfill the obligations in a manner worthy of your trust. Many thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
	A World War I U-boat draws a crowd after grounding on the Falmouth coast in 1921.

Thank you (4)!

Good advice - I tend to get caught up in the emotion of the moment. Regards Sarah777 (talk)

Hope to see you...

On Saturday... Majorly talk 22:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Manchester 5

You've expressed interest in Wikipedia:Meetup/Manchester 5; I'm just coming to give you the details and a reminder. We will be meeting on 4 April at The Manchester & County near Picadilly train station at around 1:00pm (although some will be turning up an hour early). There will be a Wikimedia sign to identify us, I believe. Ironholds (talk) 05:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Cremallara

I've arrived at the conclusion he is probably a wind up merchant. I'm not going near the guy anymore but could you remind him that its not acceptable to re-arrange comments on a talk page out of context. (As he has done). I'd point it out but he would on past record use it as an excuse for more comments. Justin talk 22:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Tireless paragraph

Hi. Since yesterday it was impossible, I propose an edit today about the Tireless issue in the History of Gibraltar article, dealing with the complaint made to the European Court of Justice. What do you think about it? Best regards. Cremallera (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Polish Government in Exile Leader and History of Gibraltar

Hello Pfainuk. There is a discussion at the Gib talk page regarding mention of the death of the Polish Government in exile leader in the "History of Gibraltar" section. Your opinion would be appreciated. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed this one was addressed to me as well(!) :)

For big letters there is a <big> tag that you can use, to go with the small tag. Coupled with bold it can make things quite noticeable. Pfainuk talk 21:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

But I'm sure Narson wouldn't go so far as to actually do this, as it is against WP talk page etiquette to use excessive markup. :-) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

British Empire

Not to influence your comment in any way shape or form (I couldn't if I tried anyway) but I would be interested in your opinion on Talk:British Empire#British rule. Regards, Justin talk 22:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Are Pfainuk and Narson the referees between Red Hat v Gibnews-and-his-rottweiler-Justin, or something?!  :-) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Antonescu AN/I revisited

Hello again, Narson. A while back, you left a message on my talkpage, letting me know that there was an ongoing AN/I thread on Antonescu. I did not log in for a week, missed it entirely, and could not locate it in the AN/I archives. Can you please direct me to it, or let me know what happened? Dahn (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a note

In case you haven't noticed yet, you may want to nowiki that ref tag in your latest comment at WT:F1, it's preventing the rest of the comment and your sig from showing. :) Apterygial 11:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I would have done it for you, but it would have meant recreating your signature, and, well, I couldn't be bothered... Apterygial 12:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Universities and antisemitism

I am writing currently a serious reaction, why this hurry? Before that, I was inviting GHcool repeatedly to the talkpage (history shows). GHcool pushing me into a hurried 3RR-thing is bad habit, and AbadF. Then, you talking to GHcool saying "kosher" is too intimate to judge unsided. Please withhold, and let go. May I now finish my reply, or does it not matter anyway? -DePiep (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

TOLD you I was editing. And an editconflict afterwards? I asked for patience. -DePiep (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(Sectiontitle inserted) -DePiep (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see my talk. A wikipedia-session spoiled. -23:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Being curious: how did you find this future 3RR? -DePiep (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Meetup

A meetup is taking place in Manchester if you are interested. Majorly talk 18:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about self-governing term in introduction of Gibraltar article

By popular request, I have started a discussion in the article's talk page. Please join if you want. --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Universities_and_antisemitism#United_Kingdom

I have addressed this issue on the article's Talk page, Universities_and_antisemitism#Recent_Edit_Warring. Although, in point of fact, it is actually the responsibility of those who initiate reverts to explain their rationale on the Talk page. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

mediation cabal

Take a look at This as you are cited as an involved party, the editor taking it there should have informed you but has omitted doing so. --Gibnews (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Justin

Narson,

I am a bit worried about Justin. Take a look at the last three sections in his talk page and in mine. A wikibreak will probably do him good. But maybe you can talk to him, lift his moral and tell him to not bother and just enjoy the discussion... (with less aggresiveness, I hope...) I am afraid that if I talk to him again (which he has forbidden me to do, but even if he hadn't) I will only make him angrier. (maybe even my question about the rottweiler angered him... I don't know...)

BTW, (as I said in the WQ discussion, out of sheer idiomatic curiosity) what did that "brush and tar, hey ho" expression mean? (just trying to learn more English, I swear ;))

Thank you very much. --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Guess who is back?

[2] [3]

Co-incidence? Regards, Justin talk 22:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Re my block

I've commented at ANI, don't see how I could block one and not the other. Short block intended to make the pair of them realise that edit warring is not the way to do things, seeing as there was no discussion on the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that the discussion was at the 2010 season article. Bit of a strange venue to discuss the 2009 season. As I stated at ANI, I'm amenable to an unblock request, but none has been made yet. I'm signing off after this so will check back tomorrow morning to see what has happened overnight. Mjroots (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Minor changes

You're completely right. I tend to use the tick when the edition is minor in terms of size. I'll try to amend. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

A dram?

Newsflash I gave up drinking in June. Justin talk 23:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah well alcohol and PTSD don't tend to make good bed fellows, thought I'd quit before it became a problem. You've noticed the tag teaming then? Justin talk 00:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

As if by magic [4], the previous RFC got cluttered with tendentious argument. Justin talk 00:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Throwback to the '90s, bad shit really. I don't have a problem with you editing it, anyway I'm going to take your advice and try and get some sleep. Justin talk 00:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

POV in Disputed Status of...

Hi Narson, I'm planning to move the discussion to a new section, providing a summary of my statement, just to get rid of the large amount of unproductive messages. Would it be OK for you? --Ecemaml (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it seems a pretty good idea. May I leave you in charge of resuming the discussion whenever you like? Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Moratorium

Just to let you know that I'll stick to the compromise, even considering Justin attitude. However, I'll go on working Gibraltar-related articles in my nursery. Best regards and Merry Christmas --Ecemaml (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Seasons greetings, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Justin talk 23:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Napoleonic Wars

I've started rewriting and citing (God forbid) on this article, care to bail in and help me out? Tirronan (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Charistmas

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and your family too! Apcbg (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Moratorium

Hi Narson, I owe you some words with regard to one of my comments in one of the countless talk pages of the Gibraltar articles. It's this one, referring to Gibnews' "mates". Obviously I wasn't referring to you and therefore I'd like to apologize if it sounded as I was including you among them. I personally appreciate the possibility of, from a deep disagreement, talking to you and exchaning points of view without indulging in personal quarrels that go nowhere. Of course that I wouldn't say the same of other individuals involved in this discussion. This moratorium has been extremely illustrative (and I must say, not surprising at all) in order to verify how it is possible to take advantage of such moratorium to promote someone's views (taking advantage of the impossibility of answering; at least Justin had the partial decency of removing part of the editions done when the rest of us had compromized not to go on with the escalation); going on with controversial editions (I still remember some mockery on me with regard to the use of {{POV}}) or how legitimate (even if naive or ill-informed) editions may be removed without any reason. Speaking frankly, I understand clearly why these articles goes nowhere. For sure I know that you don't support such king of behaviour, but I'd like to have seen some comment on it.

On the other hand, and switching to the real issue, I don't agree with some of your summaries. How would you like to proceed? Would you like me to add my ony summary or directly edit on yours or talk about them in here?

Best regards and happy new year :-) --Ecemaml (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Minion?

Did I miss something? Justin talk 15:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Were we accused of sock puppetry and investigated? Justin talk 14:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Was he one of the sock on the USS Liberty before I abandoned the page to preserve my sanity? I'd be amazed if they did a checkuser on that flimsy pretext. Justin talk 15:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, I don't remember the guy but I obviously upset him. Wonder what it was that I did? Justin talk 16:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Make what?

What are you referring to? Personally, if you try to keep a stance as sort of "mediator" (something that I thank a lot) an equal treatment to all parties would be helpful. Otherwise, it doesn't help. Best regards and happy new year --Ecemaml (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I assume you might be referring to this ("you have months to decide anything because of the tendentious arguments, continuously repeating the same argument and not listening to the other side. Using a talk page properly will achieve much better results.") I didn't see any comment on this. I can recognize that sometime several of my editions might be considered inappropriate, and I don't see a warning from your side as hostile. On the contrary. But for it to work, it must work in both ways. Best regards

Apologies

You're right, as usual. Apologies for raising your blood pressure, I shouldn't let myself react to a rise. I'm going to back off and leave those articles alone for a few days. Justin talk 00:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice :)

I have to admit I laughed at your Big Bang Theory reference. Quite amusing. :) Rockfang (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Review

A deletion review that you may have an interest in: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 8#File:HMS Ambuscade (F172).jpg. Justin talk 23:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Justin and me

It sounds like a movie title, but it isn't (so far).

Could you take a look here and see whether you can make some comment to Justin? I am sure you have many reasons to criticise me (you don't need to explain, I have heard enough since I entered in the Gib articles ;-) ), but maybe they are fewer than Justin's. Most important, maybe you can try to make his attitude more open to edits from people like me (and help clearing the deadlock in Gib-related articles). Thanks! --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobel Prize

Hello! I am currently working on the "Swedish Project" and "Award and Prizes"'s article Nobel Prize. Since it is a top importance article and not even GA class I am trying to make it a GA article and perhaps further after that. However, I'm in a state now where I could use some help. I need a new pair (several pairs in fact) of eyes to look at the article and the talk page for improving prose, debation of different things and some sourcing. Do you got any possibility to help out? BR --Esuzu 12:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esuzu (talk • contribs)

RfC: Self-government

Talk:Gibraltar#RfC:_Self-government Seeing as no one thought to invite you, I hesitated before inviting you as I'm aware you were tired of the tendentious arguments. I think I'm just about to give it up as well, I can't believe that an admin would edit war to do exactly what the disruptive editors actually want. Justin talk 12:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

In an attempt to end the madness, I've made a proposal that I think covers things, take look at the talk page and see what you think. --Gibnews (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of comments from poll

I see you have reverted the comments of Red hat.

In the case of the poll, I asked for a vote and one line only with no comments in order to prevent disruption. I removed his comments and asked him on the user page to vote again as it seems he is not actually voting for the proposition and saying he agrees with something different that was not included. This was done very politely.

see the diff here

its a very different thing to simply removing someone's talk page content. --Gibnews (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 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) 04:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

San Roque

Narson,

I don't want to edit war (neither with you nor anybody else). I appreciate very much you level-headed approach to the Gib articles. But I don't understand your reason for avoiding the mention to San Roque in the article (and I want to understand, thus my comment in your page and the following honest questions):

• Do you realise that San Roque has many more mentions in History of Gibraltar secondary sources than many other events in the History section?
• Do you have an encyclopedic argument to avoid mentioning San Roque but keep those other events in the History section?
• Or is it that (of course a respectable option) you want to avoid that some editors are in disagreement with the article (currently, Justin)?

Thank you very much. I have an honest interest in your reasons (I hope my questions don't sound too loaded, I've rewritten them a couple of times in order to avoid that). --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answers. Still, I have doubts about some of them (I don't want to disturb you, if I start to get boring, tell me).

• The encyclopedic reasons to avoid the mention and keep other events: Who says what is noteworthy or not? If this is the History section in a Gibraltar article, the usual answer would be "mentions in History of Gibraltar secondary sources". What else do you have in mind?
• Regarding "peace on Talk:Gibraltar" ;) : please, think whether Justin's complaints are more, less or equally valuable as other editors'.

Thank you again. --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Off to bed

Off to bed and was just about to say goodnight when I spotted your message. The sad thing about trying to take in the wikipedian message of assuming good faith, rather than my personal preference of simply twatting fuckwits straight off, is that you fall repeatedly for wind up merchants being utter knobheads. Seems also that some half-decent editors also fall for their ego being stroked as well, so much so that vsnity blinds them from the blindingly bleeding obvious.

So goodnight, I shall retire for a few days and come back refreshed for the long haul. When I quit, and I did quit, I was surprised by the number of emails I got thanking me for standing up to the POV pushers. Fare thee well, and if I embarrassed you by faint praise in my farewell message, then good because I meant every word of it. Good night young man. Justin talk 00:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Outing

Narson,

Ecemaml seems bent on outing Gibnews, trouble is based on what he has told me he has the wrong end of the stick. I've tried to reason with him but its falling on deaf ears. Sadly I can just see this freight train heading into the buffers at arbcom at top speed. Justin talk 13:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom case

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Gibraltar and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 13:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Pox on everyone's house

Indeed it is. However, per the Medieval Miasma theory of disease, "Miasma was considered to be a poisonous vapor or mist filled with particles from decomposed matter (miasmata) that caused illnesses. It was identifiable by its foul smell." What we have at the Gibraltar page is a lot of miasma and foul smells. We need the bad airs exchanges for good airs - it has stunk there for too long. Incidentally, you often portray yourself as a mediator, but you have contributed to matters by giving Justin positive feedback that his behaviour is OK, that he is the way he is and everyone else should change their behaviours to accommodate his tempers. Perhaps you let your online friendship with Justin cloud your judgement. Anyway, looking over my contributions, although some carry a sharp edge, I'm perfectly happy for them to be scrutinised. Especially if the worst crime I committed was removing a paragraph on some Polish general and removing links to his personal site which had been agreed on three boards that it was not a reliable source. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case has opened

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at ArbCom

Hi, I was about to post the following response in the Arbcom page, but thought that maybe we were getting too long about one specific issue. So I will tell you here and maybe we can either agree without disturbing that page, or disagree and then let's let each one's positions be explained there (which I think they already are, more or less). My comment was going to be:

I don't remember any party saying that UN is NPOV. At the most, the parties in this dispute have said from the beginning in August that the UN has a very notable POV, isn't it? Look at this comment of mine from August: 'I am not saying that the article should state "Gibraltar is a non self-governing territory" either, but "the UN ..."' Red Hat also said in August 'Please let's not confuse neutral and notable.'"

I hope you'll agree that TRHoPF, Richard Keatinge, Ecemaml, Cremallera and myself were only trying to make sure that all notable (at least the ones that seemed notable in our opinion) POVs from reliable sources were there: UK House of Commons, UN, Chief Minister, the most relevant History of Gibraltar books... None of those parties in the dispute has even pushed for any Spanish Ministry's or Spanish newspaper's POV to be included. (No matter what our individual POVs, which as I said do not strike me as Spanish nationalist POVs).

Finally, that MEGV that you mention doesn't even seem to exist now as a user... So I am always talking about the parties in the dispute, who are in fact the ones with the largest (too much in my case!!) edit history in the Gibraltar talk page. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Falklands

No intention of any further reverts, AN/I would have been the next step. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 19:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't be offended...

I am writing to you a more detailed comment than at ArbCom because it seemed to me that you were offended by my comment, and therefore I owed you some further explanation than my reply there (I wouldn't want to bore other uninvolved people there, I hope this doen't bore you).

• In the first place, I want to make clear that I don't think that defending a Pro-Gib POV is wrong. It is perfectly fine: from what I've seen here in WP, it's not editors who have to be NPOV, but articles; and that is the result of editors combining their opinions and having some reference for what is verifiable and notable in secondary sources (I know that you know that even better than I do, but I felt I had to put some context to my comment).

• If I say that you've defended edits more according to a pro-Gib POV than not, it's not because I assume that because you are British that's what you'll do (in fact, if you look at my comments to any British involved editor, they are all the same: I never assume anything from them, including Richard Keatinge, you, Red Hat...). I've said that because I've read your comments and your edits and you seem to factually defend more edits along one line than the other (which, as I've said, is perfectly fine with me!!) I don't say that they were driven by a particular POV or nationalism, I just say that they have happened like that.

• Please also notice that I've said that you are one of the most neutral editors because, looking at your comments and edits you seem to accept more neutral edits (e.g. accepting that the UN position was notable enough to be in the lead along the "self-governing declaration", while all other editors said that it was not).

• Finally, you have critisised many editors due to their behaviour (and probably rightly so many of the times). But those editors seemed to mostly be on one "side" of the dispute. In fact, you have never critisised Justin's much more abusive attitude (at most, you have told Justin to get some sleep or calm down, not that what he was doing was wrong). I don't say that it was intentioned. I guess that we are all humans: we like some people and dislike others, and those affections unconsciously drive our behaviour. I am probably also like that, too.

Don't you think you can be one of the editors that can help keep the neutrality of the Gib article from editors defending a more "Spanish POV", even if Justin and Gibnews are absent from that article? That was the main point of my comment (responding to EyeSerene concerns).

Sorry for my long comment, but I haven't been able to cut it shorter (I hope that my worry that you completely understand my previous reply is enough excuse for its length). -- Imalbornoz (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC) BTW, if I have worried to learn English language is -among other things- because I like the culture: I have many friends there, I admire the Anglo-Saxon practical way of dealing with complicated problems (political, social, mechanical...), the distrust of unbalanced authority, the sense humour... So do not think that I've an anti-British bias; it's much more like the opposite...

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Blue helmets needed

Plese, Narson, help us... I was about to give a very angry response to Justin, but I changed it in the last moment (hopefully it's not too bad). If this goes on, Justin and I (and probably some more) are going to make each other bitterer and bitterer until...

Pretty soon (three months in the worst case is nothing, really) we are going to be working together in the Gibraltar article, so we'd better get along. Myself, I got the message about the 3RR, now I only want to stop this confrontation. Can you intermediate between Justin and me (like you did with the 3RR)? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I now understand what I did was a silly thing indeed. Well, I really hope you are right and we all get over this. Thank you very much. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey good subpage User:Narson/Thingmen

Hey, I noticed the subpage User:Narson/Thingmen in and realized that you would be a great addition to the new Wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. We really hope you will join us in improving articles about the period. Sadads (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

The April 2010 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) 19:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 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) 21:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

The IP editor didn't make the POV edit, he simply reverted it twice but I take your point about editors with grudges. Justin talk 23:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members	Editorial LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced; Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy	Editorial Opportunities for new military history articles
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants	Editorial In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hope that you get to feeling better

I'd wondered why it had been so long since I'd heard from you. I know sometimes it seems like the world of wiki revolves around personalities but it helps to remember all the great folks that you meet here as well. This Texan misses you! Come on back.Tirronan (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)	Editorial In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Name change

There is a reason for the name change, I've got tired of the infantile morons on wikipedia tittering like little girls and also I've had a problem with harassment off-wiki. Please could you avoid use of my real name. Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

AE Courtesy Note

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Wee Curry Monster

This is a courtesy note to let you know that you have been mentioned by name at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result concerning Wee Curry Monster and a proposed user conduct solution has been posted. No action has been suggested against you. Vassyana (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Chill OK, it doesn't matter. Wee Curry Monster talk

If you disagree concentrate on working on trying to find a lasting remedy, better yes? Wee Curry Monster talk 10:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a principle: Namely collective stupidity. You cannot constantly condone incorrect behaviour and then be surprised when it occurs, yet the admin do. Arbcom even does (though Arbcom is, I am sure, an april fools joke of Jimbo's that has just gone too far and he feels too guilty to own up to) - to the point of being a running joke to the community. They want us to take them seriously? Then they need to either A) Take their roles seriously and put genuine thought into 'rulings' rather than trotting out simplistic drivel, or B) Leave it to people who will. A sitation where Ironholds would be an overwhelming improvement to the adminning quality indicates how far it is sinking. He is starting to look like the bloody messiah to me right now. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Mood stabilising drugs are immensely helpful! Wee Curry Monster talk 10:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Take care young whipper snapper. Don't get too disillusioned. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• I love you too, honeybunch. See you Thursday. Ironholds (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Have I missed something? Wee Curry Monster talk 11:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Ironholds is semi-local wikipedian I know. He thinks he is funny. He is not. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Young whippersnapper, [5], suggest you strike through the last sentence. As an aside, struggled through the weather to hear a cracking local band last night. So today I am quite mellow and plan to keep things that way. Take care, young man. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Response

You have a response on my talk page. Vassyana (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar Discretionary Sanctions

This is a courtesy note to inform you that articles and discussions about Gibraltar or concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar are subject to a discretionary sanctions remedy. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar#Discretionary sanctions. You are being notified per the actions logged here. Any disruptive, uncivil, or generally problematic conduct may lead to discretionary sanctions imposed by an administrator. This warning is not an indication of any wrong doing on your part. It is simply a general notice to recent editors in the topic area. Thank you for understanding. Vassyana (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar Discretionary Sanctions

This is a courtesy note to inform you that articles and discussions about Gibraltar or concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar are subject to a discretionary sanctions remedy. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar#Discretionary sanctions. You are being notified per the actions logged here. Any disruptive, uncivil, or generally problematic conduct may lead to discretionary sanctions imposed by an administrator. This warning is not an indication of any wrong doing on your part. It is simply a general notice to recent editors in the topic area. Thank you for understanding. Vassyana (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Gibraltar

I have provided a warning about discussion participation at Talk:Gibraltar#Discussion Warning. This is to ensure you have been explicitly notified. This note does not indicate any wrongdoing on your part. I am sending it to all talk page participants with the past 72 hours.

As a recent participant, I explicitly invite you to join in the discussion that I have started at Talk:Gibraltar#Refocus. Discussions on the talk page are going around in old circles. I am trying to help break that pattern and get the discussion focused. I look forward to your contributions in helping improve the article. --Vassyana (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)