User talk:Keysanger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Look in my archive[edit]

How to contact me[edit]

Cumberland[edit]

Hi Keysanger, No evidence that she ever bore the name Thames. The East India company records cover her from when she was built to when she was sold and there is no mention of a name change. The "Thames" is probably someone misunderstanding a notation to the effect that she was built on the Thames. Actually, she was built at a dockyard at Deptford, on the Thames. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Chilean Coup infobox[edit]

Hi Keysanger, I just noticed that you removed the "military conflict" infobox from the 1973 Chilean coup d'état article. While you are (obviously) correct that that was not a military conflict, it seems to me that the infobox as used there was still useful, and constituted a significant improvement to the article, especially as we don't seem to have a good infobox for a coup. The only thing that comes close is the event infobox, which has much less info. I'd like to hear your thoughts on re-inserting it. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde93, it is an interesting question, lets talk about in the article's tp. Perhaps some one has another (better) idea. --Keysanger (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Sure, that works. Would you like to start a discussion there? Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I am writting it just now, I need 5 mins. --Keysanger (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Luciano-Benjamin-Menendez.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Luciano-Benjamin-Menendez.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks for following through with the coup infobox. Your efforts deserve a reward. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Economic history of Chile#Causes of the War of the Pacific". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Kharkiv07 (T) 20:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

United States and state-sponsored terrorism[edit]

Hi Keysanger, I saw that you add this material, there is an ongoing discussion about the deletion of the article and, among other things, said material is one of the topics. If you could share your thoughts about this and the deletion of the article would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Rupert loup (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Economic history of Chile[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at WP:AN3#User:Dentren reported by User:Keysanger (Result: Both blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Might be interesting in commenting..[edit]

Letting aside our discrepancies for a moment I would like to invite you to comment in..

and

where I think your commentary could be useful. Dentren | Talk 20:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

thanks. I have some extra problems at home these weeks. but i will keep it in mind. --Keysanger (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed action on the AN3 report about Economic history of Chile[edit]

Hello Keysanger. Please see my plan for closing this which which I expressed at the AN3 report. Both editors would be warned of blocking if they revert the article again, prior to a talk page consensus. You may respond there if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The report is now closed per the terms I originally offered. Be aware that either of you can be blocked if you do any reverts of the article, prior to a talk page agreement. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Description of the causes of a war". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 1 July 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 14:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted[edit]

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Description of the causes of a war, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Description of the causes of a war, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Your discussion points on the mediation subpage[edit]

Hello. I've undone your additions to the page, and I ask that you keep it brief and focused solely on the content of the article and not the other editor. Explanation of policies is not needed in this section either - dot points need only be as brief as "Issue 1 - content of X paragraph" or "whether we use flag X or Y.". The full discussion will begin after. Please note - this mediation will likely end in a compromise between the two viewpoints (with Wikipedia policy taken into account and also weighted), and as per the ground rules, you agreed to keep an open mind. This has the appearance of a set of findings that end in the outcome you have requested for some time. Unfortunately this is not how mediation works. Once you have re-posted your dot points that are solely on the high level issues (maximum 1,000 characters) we will delve into the actual discussion of the issues. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 00:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

To delete my contribution is a severe break of your duty as mediator. If you don't want to continue, I will understand it. --Keysanger (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I disagree - my role as a mediator is to frame the discussion, ensuring that it is balanced and open minded. Starting off with a long summary directed at the flaws you see with another editor and why because of these flaws the only acceptable version of the article is the one you have previously suggested is not within the spirit of the process, and is why I removed it and asked you to, for want of a better word, try again. I have not undone their edit because it's focused on the broad issues affecting the article as they see it, and is very succinct. Once the issues are summarised I will start the discussion process and we can go into the details of each issue, one by one. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 11:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I think a mediation needs a common ground of confidence to each other, and I don't see it after my contribution has been deleted. I will not continue. I thank you for your time. --Keysanger (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way or if you misunderstood the ground rules or my points above. I tend to keep discussions quite constrained at the start and then work from there, in an interest to start small. I did not feel comments that were directed at other editors would help foster the environment that I felt would work within mediation, so I undid your edit to ask you to revise here. If the other editor had done the same, I would have undone their edit too and asked them to revise. But I respect your wishes (though it does leave the article in a stuck situation, with the DRN thread being closed and the formal mediation case rejected. But if you change your mind, let me know. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 12:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:3O[edit]

Thank you for listing your dispute at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Your request did not follow the guidelines for listing disputes. These guidelines are in place because they make sure that the editor who writes the Third Opinion is not biased, and that (s)he can easily see what the dispute is about.

The description of the dispute should be concise and neutral, and you should sign with the timestamp only. A concise and neutral description means that only the subject matter of the dispute should be described, and not your (nor anyone else's) views on it. For example, in a dispute about reliable sources, do not write "He thinks this source is unreliable", but rather write "Disagreement about the reliability of a source". To sign with only the timestamp, and without your username, use five tildes (~~~~~) instead of four.

Your request for a Third Opinion may have been edited by another editor to follow the guidelines - feel free to edit it again if necessary. If the dispute is of such a nature that it cannot follow the guidelines, another part of the dispute resolution process may be able to help you.Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

War of the Pacific[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Latzina Map[edit]

Keysanger,

I wonder if you might care to comment on where you sourced the maps for the article Beagle Channel cartography since 1881, there is a discussion in commons c:File talk:Map.rep.arg.1883.jpg over the accuracy of the copy of the Latzina map you uploaded. Regards, WCMemail 10:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, I replied to you on Commons. WCMemail 13:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Undue weight and original research in the Causes of the War of the Pacific". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 8 March 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 17:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Undue weight and original research in the Causes of the War of the Pacific, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

War of the Pacific[edit]

What are you trying to advise me about the constant contention about War of the Pacific? We have three plausible options at this point. First, it can continue to be edited disruptively at least until 2017. Second, the article can be taken to ArbCom, which will impose discretionary sanctions. Third, additional editors can be brought in. You appear to be complaining that I should not have requested additional editors. However, I am not trying to control the article, and I do not care what the spirits that I summon do. The battleground editing has been going on and will continue to go on unless someone does something to stop it. I will note that many areas that are covered by discretionary sanctions are covered because of battleground editing about regions that have been real battlegrounds in the past, and this is no exception. My own preference would be to get ArbCom to impose discretionary sanctions, but one of the editors doesn't want that, so I am willing to compromise and bring in additional editors instead. I am not trying to control the spirits. What are you suggesting that I should or should not do? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:,
  • More users: More *ists, *isms, iluminati and charlatans wouldn't improve the article. Writers committed to the Wikipedia rules will do it. But they must be able to present a case to a formal mediation if needed.
  • Discretionary sanctions: They will make the admin jobs easier, but will they make the article better?
  • Battleground: history statistics shows that it has been worse. But now that the Argentina history sanctions have been lifted, there could be a relapse on the way, as I read in a talk page.
Weighting to the respective interests of Wikipedia and the paper trail of the parties concerned, I support that the ArbCom decide about the conditions for editing WotP. I am sorry, but it is the best way to stop the edit warring. --Keysanger (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiLove[edit]

Isla Vidal Gormaz & Islas Rennell[edit]

Concerning picture https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chile.estrechodemagallanes.png and in accordance with "Geoportal Chileno" (http://www.geoportal.cl/Visor/) :

  • The correct name for the island closed to "Isla Contreras" is "Isla Vidal Gormaz" instead of "Isla Vidal Gómez"
  • "Isla Rennell" is spelt with two "n"

BTH (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Peruvian Salpeter Monopoly[edit]

Does this article exist in mainspace, or only in your sandbox? If it's in mainspace, please provide me with a link. Brianboulton (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Brianboulton, I hesitated because of the quality but now is the article in the main space under Peruvian Salpeter Monopoly. @Ehrenkater: and @Gerda Arendt: have worked at. Further comments can be written in the talk page of the article. And we hope the best. --Keysanger (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
It's better to have articles in mainspace at a relatively early stage, so that editors generally can comment on them. In this case, there are numerous maintenance tags in the article, and I think most of these issues should be resolved before copyediting begins; copyediting is generally done at a fairly late stage in an article's development, for the obvious reason that the text is likely to change a good deal from its early draft. Brianboulton (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peruvian Salpeter Monopoly, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tarapacá (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)