User talk:Wee Curry Monster

Home     E-mail

——————————————— Wee Curry Monster's Talk Page ——————————————— Please note that it is 12:29 AM (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!

File:Mirage IIIEA - FAB.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

Mistake

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History Section NPOV

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

Skirmish at Top Malo House

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

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

GERBIL

--Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Declaring interests

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

Inacurracy

What did you find inaccurate in the text I modified about Argentinean and Chilean dispute with the UK in the 60s? -- Langus (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The 1955 ICJ action was rejected by Argentina, this is an important point to note, you removed that. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't.

• Current version (removed text in bold): "Shortly after the formation of the UN in 1945, Argentina asserted its right to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. In 1947, the United Kingdom offered to submit the case to the International Court of Justice at The Hague, but Argentina refused the offer. A unilateral application by the United Kingdom in 1955 to the Court in respect of Argentine encroachment ended in deadlock when Argentina announced that it would not respect the decision of the court."
• Proposed version (new text in bold): "Shortly after the formation of the UN in 1945, Argentina asserted its right to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. In 1947, the United Kingdom offered to submit the case to the International Court of Justice at The Hague, but Argentina and Chile (since it included Antarctic territories disputed by both countries) refused the offer. A unilateral application by the United Kingdom in 1955 to the Court ended in deadlock when they both refused to give their consent.[1]"

In fact, omitting Chile (as the current version does) it's definitely more inaccurate. "The refusal of Argentina and Chile to accept authority of the ICJ meant that the Antarctic case was never heard [...] and in March 1956, the case was quietly removed from the Court's list". --Langus (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No its irrelevant to mention Chile, we are talking here about 2 separate cases before the ICJ. Chile is not relevant in this context. See [2] and [3]. This additional material is not relevant to the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You're joking me, right? That's one document split in two PDF files...

It's only one case: check the sources. To mention Chile would be appropriate and more accurate. --Langus (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No you're wrong there were two separate cases filed. [4].[5]. If you read the press release TWO cases were removed.

The Chilean case is not relevant here. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologize, looks like you're right on that. Funny thing is that it they are referred to as "the Antarctica case" in the source.

Although Chile-UK dispute is not irrelevant, it can be treated separately from that with Argentina. --Langus (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for peeking in to help

	You peeked, you helped, you go boy!
	I hereby award you the peek-a-boo award, bestowed for your diligence in service to Wikipedia and to associate with the rest as Jimbo's peaches. Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 01:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Hey, I hope you don't mind, but I've mentioned you in this request. If you have any details to add, please do. Thanks, Nightw 14:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for all the work you put in here. Finally got a result! Nightw 04:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, I doubt this is the last we've heard of it. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Question

I hope this edit changing your comment at Talk:Female genital mutilation is ok. It seemed like a typo that could be interpreted the wrong way. Sincerest apologies if I am mistaken, and feel free to revert. Quasihuman | Talk 20:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

"Neither the UK or the Falkland Islanders think there's something to resolve"

I said this based on the passage that reads "As far as the governments of the UK and of the Falkland Islands are concerned, there is no issue to resolve" in the Falkland Islands article, which is properly sourced.[6] I don't have the intention of being belligerent.

Regards. --Langus (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Can't be arsed

• Brother, take it easy and let it go. See also WP:Don't-give-a-fuckism#Wikipedia and not giving a fuck. Why should we let these idiots spoil our joy of editing? Why should we let them take away our sense of joy of editing by listening to their meaningless accusation or feeble complaints? Stay the course and don't care a rap for these idiots. Both of us know that the world will never be short of wankers, why let them ruin our fun and joy? If they're playing mind games with us, then the best thing for us to do under such circumstances would be to not give a rat's ass for their absurdity and stupidity. Because eventually, they will get bored after they try, try and try again but getting no response from us. Remember WP:Observations on Wikipedia behavior#3? Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Newbie alert!

• Betakittymolly seems like a clueless newbie, remember we started off much the same way too so go easy on him. Whatever he says, just ignore him for the time being, I'll take it from hereon. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

YGM!

Hello, Wee Curry Monster. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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©♪♫®} 17:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Still laughing

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

Right back at you! Oops! I hope I don't get into trouble for using this!

Whack!

The above is a WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis). It is used for the purpose of making subtle adjustments to clue levels of experienced Wikipedians. For newcomers, use a minnow. For not-so-subtle adjustments, try a whale.

Any Wikipedian who wants to be open to trout slapping can add {{troutme}} to the top of his or her user page. Mugginsx (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

As an aside to your recent quote

I like a 13 clip Belgium Automatic myself. Easy for a woman to use, but gets the job done if it's needed. Kept it under my pillow for years when I lived in Miami. Mugginsx (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Joke of the day

• I'm like flabberghasted~! Those melon famers, they never shut their front door~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 20:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I remember Craig, doing the clubs in Glasgae as Bing Hitler. The boy done good. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

In case you missed it...

In case you missed it, I replied to your comment on my talk page. Thanks. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

a BIG bite

Wee, you changed the bite template to a small one. You can't see the teeth. I think I would like to give someone a "big bite" but went into edit history and could not find how you originally did it. Would you please give me a big bite? Thanks, Mugginsx (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

tapadh leat!

bifan nas fhaide!

Hope that is correct! Mugginsx (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry! Message at my page

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

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

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

Curious...

• Supreme facepalm of destiny... See this, what has the MacDonald clan got against "Facepalm"...??? I really wonder... and about your earlier dropby, apologies as I really didn't quite get the picture so I went on to other things instead. Anyway, today's my day off so I'm going to turn in early, goodnight~! :) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Curiouser...

See here. - BilCat (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I suspected as much! Sockmasters can be quite obvious and predictable, even to editors who haven't encountered them before, as socks have their own stench! Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Message

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

Commented

Have made a comment to the page. Will look for references. Oxford DNB would probably have both but maybe not. It requires a subscription for Americans but perhaps not in Scotland. Mugginsx (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops! worded it incorrectly. Fixed it. Mugginsx (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Tagging

Ahoy Wee Curry Monster, you have a response to a message you just left me. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette discussion

I have made an uninvolved editors comment at the current Wikiquette discussion involving the article Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands --Senra (Talk) 10:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

YGM!

Hello, Wee Curry Monster. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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©♪♫®} 14:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources for USS Trumbull

Hello again, WCM, Thought I'd give it a shot and see what surfaced for USS Trumbull and came up with these sources:

• History of the navy of the United States of America, By James Fenimore Cooper
  
• THE NAVAL HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, By WILLIS J. ABBOT
• A history of the United States Navy, from 1775 to 1893, By Edgar Stanton Maclay
  
• Warships of the world to 1900, By Lincoln P. Paine
• CONTINENTAL NAVY ACTIONS
  
• Trumbull
  
• Marine Corps Legacy Museum
  

Hope this helps, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Just added a source by Lincoln P. Paine to the above list, covering Trumbull's loss of her top mast and consequent engagement from HMS Iris, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Generalmesse is back

thanks for the warning! will keep an eye out for this POV edits too. noclador (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Guys, you have to do this without me, I've got a headache (it comes and go like the whim of my missus!) lately from watching out for them smelly socks. TBH, I need a break from the watching or I'm going to go nuts very soon. Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Compromise?

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

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Pathetic

"rv IP edits" is a stunningly lame non-reason for a revert. What the fuck do you think you're playing at? You obviously haven't got the first clue about how Wikipedia is supposed to work. 200.104.120.204 (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

200, I tried to help you. In fact I stuck my neck out for you. You were falsely accused of vandalism and even blocked -- I spoke up, as you can see on my talk page -- but this one is different. If you are unwilling to abide by our site's civility policy, I'm sorry, you're on your own. Antandrus (talk) 04:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)