User talk:Kahastok/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
 < Archive 2    Archive 3    Archive 4 >
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  13 -  ... (up to 100)

Welcome to WikiProject European Union!

Global European Union.svg Hello, Kahastok/Archive 3, and welcome to WikiProject European Union! Thank you for your generous offer to help contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a European Union Project Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your edits. Again, welcome, and happy editing! Wikiproject European Union.svg

-- J Logan t: 11:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Mon dieu

They are back. More giant blocks of text. Huzzah. Narson (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, what fun... Pfainuk talk 23:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
That got slightly mad, and what with Lewis Hamilton getting pole in the other ear I've had an interesting hour. Just for the record, I gave Red Hat a 3RR warning here. Justin seems to have backed off a bit - which is probably a good thing given the rising temperature there. Pfainuk talk 13:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
It did. I stopped reading to watch the qualifying and everyone decides they want to compete for prize turnip. Justin had a good point to begin with then shook it, he does that on occasion whn he knows he is right. I can sympathise, I do love to be right myself. It seems so silly when we don't even know if there is a problem yet for everyone to get their hackles up. Narson (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, agreed. And they have some history as well, as Red Hat was involved in Justin's 3RR block last year.
In any case, they ended up each resolving to delete anything the other ever wrote on their talk pages, which seems to be working out. Red Hat also reverted my 3RR warning pretty quickly but he seemed to get the hint - which is, after all, the reason it gets put there. Pfainuk talk 16:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I must admit, Justin's block is before I really knew the guy back when I wasn't sure if he was right or annother rapid pro-Brit. I tend to avoid templating the regulars. They know what they are doing, so a form letter seems silly. A note is always good to let them know. Narson (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I did think about DTTR (though WP:TTR also occurred to me!), but figured it would probably make very little difference what I put provided it was reasonably polite and put the 3RR warning over - and that it was worth giving him the warning. Justin's block - I was the same at the time since Justin was pretty new. Ancient history now, though. Pfainuk talk 17:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Right I'm done, at least for the day. I was going to make an explicit proposal and ask if there were any objections, but I got edit conflicted with Gibnews and decided to wait. Red Hat just won't stop fighting his corner, even when no-one actually objects to his edit except in that it didn't have consensus when he made it. Gibnews - he might object, he might not. Looks like he doesn't though I hardly see how the edit with "Spanish sovereignty" implies any cooperation from the Gibraltarians. Never mind. Pfainuk talk 18:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
There should be a wikipedia policy called WP:I am bored now! Narson (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Jesus. Got back to the talk page and one read and all the good mood from the Hamilton win was used up. Seriously. Narson (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
This is just getting silly. Justin isn't helping, even though he does have a point. Red Hat seems to feel somehow threatened by the fact that we don't all agree with him. And I found his accusation of incivility pretty extraordinary given his own conduct on the page and I was considering inviting him to ANI if he wants to back it up. I've left it off here but if he repeats it I may well do so. Pfainuk talk 16:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This has just got retarded. Narson (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, as promised I kept out of it, I was just looking at the remains wondering whether to RFC or AN/I? Justin talk 17:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The whole thing needs mediation, but no-one will agree. I do think an admin needs to step in but it seems small fry for an AN/I. Narson (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm probably going to refer it to medcab shortly if you don't first (I'll give it a couple of hours), the latest from Red Hat was just too far. Clearly appears to be goading Gibnews. Justin talk 18:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello friends. Thanks for inviting me to the party! I would happily agree to mediation. I would also appreciate it if Justin_A_Kuntz keeps out of any mediation attempt as he has done enough "goading" of his own in this dispute. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Whoa... party on my talk page while I was watching telly...
Narson and Justin, completely agree. Except that I think we can close discussion of Red Hat's comment with his follow up (since you wrote your message, Justin).
Medcab - I'll go for it, and I think we all have now except Gibnews. I'm not sure I (and others in my position) will be more than a peripheral voice since I will accept most of the range of solutions that seem to be in discussion here. RFC also has its benefits if someone will actually comment - but I'm not sure many will.
ANI and admins... the thing is they don't have any power to force Gibnews (or anyone else) to allow something they're unwilling to unless they're clearly arguing from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Ultimately, they can give advice or chip in themselves but unless there's an actual user conduct issue they can't really use their tools or wield any special authority. Mediation would allow an admin to look over it and help solve it with a certain measure of authority and I think that might help. Pfainuk talk 22:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts, I thought I'd give time for you to think about it before taking action. I'll probably take it to medcab later if I find the time. Cheers, Justin talk 13:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


Thanks as always for correcting my mistakes. Do you think the summary was OK? I was in two minds about the User Conduct section, on one hand they ask for that in the template, on the other I'm not sure pointing fingers helps. I'm still not 100% certain either way, what are your thoughts? Justin talk 18:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we crossed paths :). I think the user conduct section is probably best left out - with Alex the mediator was removing our comments on user conduct and I wouldn't be surprised if the same happened here. And it might serve to inflame things. In any case, it's not difficult to work out what was meant by "quite heated" from just reading the talk page - it's almost all in one place. Pfainuk talk 18:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
And its gone, as always welcome the input. Justin talk 18:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
If I could find an emoticon that would accurately convey a sigh, I'd be using it about now. Logged on this morning to find Red Hat had struck through most of my summary and is placing pre-conditions on participation. After removing all comments about User Conduct I awake to find he'd got up early to put some back in. Do you ever have a heavy feeling that something might be doomed from the start? Justin talk 08:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
And mediation already looks scuppered. Oh well, I guess I get to be smug about knowing this wouldn't work. Narson (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
It certainly is scuppered. And I'll tell you something: these little off-page snipes did not help matters. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it was rather unreasonable to demand a line-item veto over Justin's summary of events - and let's be clear, everyone knows this is Justin's summary because it was him that filed the MedCab. And I also think you're throwing away our best chance of solving this any time soon for no good reason. That statement is not particularly important since the mediator will get to know every side of the dispute well. It doesn't set the tone for mediation. It tells potential mediators what the discussion is about. Pfainuk talk 20:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I was simply asking for a neutral and fair beginning to the discussion, I really don't think that was much to ask. It is not fair to outline my position and then use a statistically insignificant observation (one person's reply on a rarely visited noticeboard) to suggest that somehow a decision had been reached and I was persisting in disagreeing with it. Anyway, judging by Gibnews' comments on the mediation page, all that is going to happen is that the discussion is going to spill over there, with exactly the same arguments and accusations rehashed. I tried to privately and politely reach out to him [1] on his talk page about mediation, but his comments on the mediation page suggest he just wants to continue with the same unconciliatory tone there. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see where you think Justin suggested that somehow a decision had been reached and [you were] persisting in disagreeing with it. And in any case, such an attitude would be incompatible with mediation, where both sides give some ground in order to find a mutually acceptable solution, which they are guided to by the mediator.
As it is I think that the responses gleaned from the NPOV noticeboard and the RS noticeboard are relevant enough to be mentioned: these are users independent of the dispute who gave their views - and I find it odd that you now complain that the response of the NPOV noticeboard is insignificant when you were the one who took the issue there. Statistically speaking - well I'd say that one user in ten (as it was at the time) is pretty significant. Now it's one in eighteen, not all of whom have expressed an opinion. Pfainuk talk 08:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
This debate is getting pointless. To conclude it: others are now contributing to the debate on the Gibraltar talk page, and the situation there is a lot healthier than before, where a tiny group was deciding what the consensus was. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

I have listed the dispute over the Gibraltar article here [2] for mediation. You are invited to participate. Justin talk 20:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 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) 02:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


I've been pondering this and you know, the article should cover the common myth about the expulsion that the Argentine governments have promulgated. It should be easy to source, do you think? Narson (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right. It's a common enough myth (such that even the ardent pro-Brits assumed it was right on Falkland Islands until someone - Justin? - pointed out that it was wrong) and we've sourced the debunking in other places so it shouldn't be too tricky to source.
I think you missed Dentren's argument on that talk page, in the section above - I'm working up a reply now but you're welcome to pre-empt me if you want. Pfainuk talk 13:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
ALR did the big research. It didn't sound right but ALR dug out all the evidence. Narson (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Cool - yeah, I've just been looking through the Sovereignty article archives - it's not like the FI article archive (which is mostly similar to the sort of argument we've been having at Gibraltar) - there's quite a bit of info there along with a fair bit of the research.
I've made an edit on the 1833 page. I don't object to it becoming a bit stronger, or if necessary I don't object to that part's being reverted out again. Pfainuk talk 16:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


Any objections to being nominated? Narson (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have responded off-wiki. Pfainuk talk 22:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Elections in Gibraltar

Thanks for the RM! I obviously support your nomination. I just dont understand why Number 57 insisted on renaming absolutely everything last time despite Gibnews' efforts! --Gibmetal 77talk 17:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I did let him know on his talk page as well (just for fairness' sake since I was warning everyone else) but he seems not to have chosen to respond this time around. In any case support for the "Gibraltar" versions should hopefully be enough to put this to bed. Pfainuk talk 22:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


Hi, Pfainuk. You deserve a barnstar. Axl (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Globe-barnstar2.png The Geography Barnstar
To Pfainuk, for countless contributions to geographical articles. Axl (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

eu:Txantiloi:Geografia izarra

Thanks :) Pfainuk talk 14:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Iconic photographs of the Falklands War

I've just started a new article in my user space here. I'd welcome your comments on the images chosen and suggestions for any others. You are of course welcome to contribute if you would like to help. Justin talk 12:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the support in keeping List of unrecognized countries at recognized. Its true I don't contribute significantly to the article but I watch it because I'm interested in the topic. I found it weird though that someone would change the name of a featured class list without any discussion which is the reason I changed it back.Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I haven't really edited the article much before this week, but you seemed to be doing the right thing moving it back. Kransky presumably just didn't notice the initial move. Pfainuk talk 17:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


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.

Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice


As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 21:39, 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) 23:18, 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) 00:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


I was just about to file a 3RRV on the chap, got all the diffs in order...and find you beat me too it ;) That will teach me to look before I leap. You might want to notify him BTW. Narson (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I was watching what was going on - I do like the F1 but seem to have become more of a reader than an editor! I've notified him, apologising for the delay in letting him know - I've never done 3RR before so reading the bit at the top might have been a good plan ;). Pfainuk talk
Have a look at the Scuderia Ferrari page. I trimmed the 2008 section yesterday and today, took 3000 bytes out IIRC. It is looking a little less monstrous now ;) Narson (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
From the history it looks like it needed it too. We don't quite need a full season summary in that article. I've managed to get myself involved on the List of Countries with a POV pushing Moroccan who has a habit of writing 8kB of mildly incoherent argument at once. Or rather, "three" POV pushing Moroccans. Someone's just said something to the effect of "you've made your points now shut up and let us discuss them" and I'm hoping that works. Pfainuk talk 20:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The addition to the Lewis Hamilton article is valid and has been backed up with a source. You need to accept it and cease the vandalism you're committing to the page. Wikipedia is about facts, not your POV, you really need to realise that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbo25 (talkcontribs) 19:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Two points. Firstly, I've never edited that page, so your accusation of vandalism on my part is difficult to credit with any response beyond bemusement. Secondly, you should assume good faith. In my view, there's no reason to assume that the reverts made by those that disagree with you at Lewis Hamilton are not in fact in good faith and thus they were not vandalism. Edit warring doesn't help anyone - if there's an issue you should discuss it on the talk page. Pfainuk talk 20:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly have any interest in arguing over and over again. The addition is valid and correct and thus it should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbo25 (talkcontribs) 20:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid if you don't want to discuss your edits where someone disagrees with them, you cannot expect them to stay in the article - regardless of how valid or correct they are. Wikipedia is driven by consensus, and the only way to get consensus to make your change is to discuss that change with others. If you continue to edit war you will look like the bad guy, and can only expect to be blocked. Pfainuk talk 20:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
And accusing other editors of vandalism when it does not conform to WP:V is likely to get you in a spot of bother too. Narson (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Especially when it comes from the guy whose contributions are mostly like this: [3] [4] [5] [6] Beve (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a thought since it's already been reverted off - remember that this is a BLP and so stricter rules apply to sourcing than normal. Pfainuk talk 21:49, 9 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) 23:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


Updated DYK query On 26 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sovereignty of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Jordan Contribs 08:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Matthew Brisbane

See you're planning an article on Matthew Brisbane, I picked up the Dictionary of Falklands Biography from Falklands House last week (day trip to London). There is tons of information in there on the people critical to Falklands history. Let me know if you need a hand. Justin talk 19:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put a bare-bones sketch of what I've got on that page, and I reckon I'll try and turn some of the bullet points into prose tomorrow. But my sources are a bit hand-wavy (one mostly just gives the basic facts behind the 1828 shipwreck, the other concentrates on the Falklands rather than Brisbane) so you're welcome to have a crack at it - you'll probably do better than I do. Pfainuk talk 22:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
OK I'll probably have a pop Sunday eve when I've got time to dedicate to it. Justin talk 23:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


Sadly Gibraltar seems to be flaring up again, there is another editor seeking to force changes in the opening pre-amble that took so long to achieve last time. I'm bowing out after 3 reverts as I'm simply not going to edit war over this and face a block. The really sad thing is that the editor forcing an edit ware appears to be an admin on the Spanish wikipedia and really should know better. Justin talk 23:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


So I don't have to do anything then? Ryan4314 (talk) 09:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No - this is just housekeeping, and won't make any practical difference to the article. It would probably be a good idea to watchlist the new image (since any bots that see it might not recognise you as the uploader), and it may be worth keeping an offline copy of the .gif just in case of weirdness. Pfainuk talk 10:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
rgr Ryan4314 (talk) 13:34, 1 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) 23:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: My note on Ecemaml's talk page

As a bit of friendly advice, I think it'd be recommended if you avoided everyone who was related to any Gibraltar articles. I can understand that sometimes discussions and editing can get quite heated, but some of the arguments just aren't worth getting annoyed about: "X reverted me 4 times and I'm gonna report X!" - I think it's best if everyone keeps away from those articles and ventures off into different territory. Wikipedia is huge. Go edit something else for a few days, calm down and relax :-) Perhaps remove all Gibraltar related articles from your watchlist, come back in a few days and see if you have a different perspective. I'm assuming all related parties to be adults, what's the point in acting like children? :-) - If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me via my talk page or e-mail [if it's private]. ScarianCall me Pat! 13:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that it is fair to post this message to me, since I believe I have been perfectly polite and calm throughout. Ecemaml asked for evidence that he had broken 3RR on RedCoat's talk page (in a message since removed by RedCoat, as is his prerogative), so I gave him it. I also pointed out that that instance was stale, and so any report would (quite rightly) be dismissed. He had an objection to a comment made on my talk page, and so I explained why I didn't think it was at issue - while at the same time, you'll note, accepting that it could have appeared to be so.
You will note that I have never edited History of Gibraltar or Telephone numbers in Gibraltar, two of the three articles in dispute here, or their associated talk pages. You will also note that this is the first time I have been in direct discussion with this editor by any means. And throughout my edit history I believe it would be difficult to find any edit that has failed in civility and suchlike, despite my involvement with articles that discuss some quite controversial issues. I have no particular quarrel with Ecemaml personally and am quite happy to discuss the articles with him in a constructive manner - but I am surprised and rather disappointed that this is not taken for granted given that we have no history of dispute. Pfainuk talk 13:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Please accept my sincerest apologies, as I'm not profoundly familiar with the whole case and who's involved, I left the generic message on everyone's talk page. If it doesn't apply to you then you have nothing to worry about ;-) - It's not really worth getting defensive about, to be honest. And, just in case you were actually involved without realising, it wouldn't have been fair of me to leave people out of receiving the message as it would violate the principle of fairness. I do apologise if you have, as you say, been perfectly polite and calm etc. etc. Take care! ScarianCall me Pat! 13:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, let's consider this dropped. Thanks, Pfainuk talk 13:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Falkland Islands

Forgive my ignorance on the conversion tool, but if you change the units without changing the input doesn't that mean the output is, well, garbage? Thats why I reverted the change. Justin talk 11:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it does in general. In this case it looks like the output (2100 sq km) was already garbage. I checked with the CIA before editing to be sure and they give 1288km - which means that the new output (1300km) is about right. Probably 99% of the time that sort of change is vandalism, so you're right to be suspicious of it - but in this case it was correct. Pfainuk talk 12:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands

Hi, with regard to your last comments on the inclusion of the Falkland Islands in the United Nations list, is this one enough for you? Mind that those days UN documents are not available in the web so it's possibly difficult to find a UN source. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine - I don't have a problem with the current version either since it does back up the point in the article. I just think a UN source would probably be better if we can get one. Doesn't look like we can, so no big deal.
On the change in wording, I rather felt that "non-autonomous territories subject to [British] administration" could include Kent or Wales, so I think it's clearer if we use the UN's wording rather than the source's wording given that they clearly apply to the same thing. Pfainuk talk 20:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, no problem with that. I've also found this one. Although it does not state clearly that the listed countries would be added to the list, it can be easily inferred. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That would do as well in my book because I don't think this is a controversial point - I prefer the others because they are explicit but it's no biggy. Pfainuk talk 21:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)