This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Justine, we need to discuss this further. Previously there was one discussion where it was agreed that the islanders find it derogatory, which is understandable, but that doesn't mean at all that the Argentinians used it that way, as you keep insisting. Nor have you ever provided any references to back up the claim nor a reference which is inline with wikipedia's rules. And consensus to push a falsehood surely isn't what wikipedia is all about? Chuckarg33 ( talk) 11:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Sure you are pushing a falshood because what you claim just isn't true, is not sourced or reference, and I've pointed this out several times before but you just push that POV. The day you have a reference you will then be able to make those claims. Chuckarg33 ( talk) 16:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Justin, I can't understand why you delete all my edit. It's new information, usefull about Investors in Bs. As. and it's my text, I didn't copy-paste information from other site and I put a link to the oficial page of buenos aires goverment. Please let me know. I want to put more about the economy of the city. Regards. Laura —Preceding unsigned comment added by La ponja ( talk • contribs) 03:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Justin A Kuntz. If something is hidden to 2082 it might be the RAF Canberras from Chile. Feel free to delete them if it's bad Wiki policy. http://www.spyflight.co.uk/chile.htm contradicts RAF and Britain's Small Wars, but I don't know the credibility of spyflight.co.uk. --Regards, Necessary Evil ( talk) 23:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
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) 01:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear Justin, Just a note of thanks for your work to protect the improvements to the South Georgia article that we achieved consensus on. Michael Glass ( talk) 09:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Justin. Even if Wikipedia has a commandment: "Be bold", I should have to discuss with you before reverting your edit on "Many Branch point", given our collaboration in the past. Frankly, I automatically though that the editon's author was Kernel Saunders, who some time ago expressed concerns about this article. My apologies for the confussion, and althought I keep my point of view on the infobox issue, I accept the majority view. Thank you.-- Darius ( talk) 17:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
To be frank, I am pretty ticked off that you made this into an ANI incident. If you had made your points to me first, I would have freely admitted (as I have done in the ANI thread) that I made a mistake and we could have moved on to important stuff. Issue resolved. – ukexpat ( talk) 21:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
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) 02:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I did not mean to suggest that the Indians played any part in the Falklands conflict; obviously that's not the case - I was simply replying to the previous editor's incorrect assertion that only the British used Sea Harriers at all. Since the article is primarily about Argentine air forces, my inclusion of "British" just before Sea Harrier serves to make the article more comprehensible. British is used throughout the article in a similar fashion and I believe it serves its purpose where I added it. My apologies for any misunderstanding regarding my edit comment -- Rydra Wong ( talk) 14:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Ciao! Hope now the page is no more screwed. I think the problem was that there are too many images, which could give problems in little resolution screens; now they are all in a row (I seem). Let me know... Ciao and good work. -- '''Attilios''' ( talk) 08:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Any British sources will be welcome, Justin. This is the kind of collaboration we need in order to avoid future claims of PoV from 'both sides' :). Nice idea. I think that we must follow the pattern of our previous work on GADA 601. Probably I will be working on the April 3 article during the next weekend. Thanks.-- Darius ( talk) 16:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Justin, thanks for your msg in my "Talk". Unfortunately I don't know of any first-hand accounts about that action, that's why my comment/question to Jor70. and i do recognize your effort to show neutrality. If I know something will touch base. Cheers, DPdH ( talk) 11:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Please stop being nasty, Justin. Calling other editors "obnoxious" is totally out of order. The rottweiler joke was meant in the same light that Richard Dawkins is called Darwin's rottweiler. I even put a smiley face after the comment. All I can say is that it was a joke: you can either accept that, or not, it's up to you, but I am telling you it was meant to be a lighthearted joke. As was the stuff about the refereeing - I just found it funny that in the same week we both turned to Narson and Pfainuk for comment. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Still working on the South Georgia article; I think it will take shape during this week. Just a couple of questions for you, Justin.
First of all, what should be the scope?. I intended the subject to be only the April 3 action, and just a brief intro dealing with the previous incident at Leith, Astiz, the 'workers', all that stuff you surely know well.
The other point is about sources. I found a quite unbiased account from the Argentine side, Contraalmirante Mayorga's No Vencidos. Despite the title, his narrative is far away from the usual jingoistic rethoric of some Argentine apologists, and exposes the Guerrico fiasco without excuses. There is another interesting Argentine book, Guerra bajo la Cruz del Sur, the most self-critical essay I know regarding Argentine armed forces. The author was a former member of the CANA (Argentine version of the Fleet Air Arm), but unfortunately he doesn't mention the Grytviken affair in depth. On the other hand, I think we should follow Freedman's official history and Britain Small Wars. These sources (specially Freedman) give us a realistic account from the British side.
Just to be frankly brutal, “Too Few, Too Far” is as partisan and unreliable as the page referring to the 'gallant' Guerrico: they claim a 100-1 ratio in favour of the Argentine troops (Freedman acknowledge not more than 50 troops), and the incredible (to say the least) statement that the British commander 'imposed his terms' during the capitulation. I wish to hear your opinion. Thanks.-- Darius ( talk) 20:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Justin, there is no consensus for this wording. I am in the middle of posting my views on the talk page. Please do not revert this any further. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted your reversion on Type 42 destroyer.
Where there is a difference in what several sources say, it is not original research to have footnotes saying what the differences between the sources is.
Where there are several sources that you would expect to be reliable, it is appropriate to record what the differences in sources are using inline citations - this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references.
The is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check whose aim is having facts in Wikipedia verified by multiple independent sources to make it the most authoritative source of information in the world. Reverting multiple references goes against this project.
The bulk of the text of the articles on modern RN warships have no citations whatsoever and frequent errors. Perhaps it would be better if you put your effort into improving verifiability by replacing unsourced material with material backed by proper inline citations.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 20:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Had you waited a few minutes you would have seen that I had fixed the link. I have found that saving while editing is necessary to avoid edit conflicts. Sometimes the save results in a link that I then fix once I have had time to check on the disambiguation page. Regards, Acad Ronin ( talk) 16:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, Justin, the first version of 1982 invasion of South Georgia is done. I decided that the scope must include Davidoff incident and the British reaction; without them, the narrative would be hopelessly incomplete. As usual, I'am open to criticism and, of course, feel free to edit it without remorse. Regards.-- Darius ( talk) 01:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
What was wrong with the Gibraltar link I posted? The link provided the locations of residential areas, which is valuable information. Inkan1969 ( talk) 10:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I can live with a certain mixture of Spanish and English headers. Grupo de Tareas 79.1 would be more confusing than Task Group 79.1 but South Atlantic Theatre of Operations sounds like a US or UK organisation. Teatro de Operaciones del Atlántico Sur was the name in 1982. Often the non-English name of opponents are used i.e. "Luftwaffe" instead of "the German Air Force" Battle of Britain#Luftwaffe strategy, First Battle of El Alamein#Panzer Army Africa attacks. According to the talk page you agreed in using the Spanish names, but you removed the Spanish names [2] - opposite your "agreed to put in the Spanish names". This is English Wikipedia, but not everything should be translated, i.e. " Flying fish missile", " Super battle standard" fighter bomber, " Twenty-fifth of May" aircraft carrier, " River big-water" coast guard cutter, " Admiral Irízar", " Great River" air base … --Regards, Necessary Evil ( talk) 16:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
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) 23:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I want to invite you to the ongoing discussion in Talk:Ushuaia about the entrance text and the title of the southermost city. I think the section "southernmost city" in the article is good but to point out in the first sentence that Ushuaia IS the southernmost city is not fair. Dentren | Talk 08:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, my RFA was closed recently with a final tally of 75 ½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your support and I hope I can count on it in the future. Even though it didn't pass, it had a nearly 2 to 1 ratio of support and I am quite encouraged by those results. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns that were brought up and resubmit in a few months. If you would like to assist in my betterment and/or co-nominate me in the future, please let me know on my talk page. Special thanks go to Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — talk |
Persistently accusing someone of supporting or excusing terrorist activity is a serious issue. I have asked you to apologise/withdraw on the talk page concerned and strongly recommend that you take up that opportunity. -- Snowded TALK 18:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
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) 03:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The term 365 for mutton seemed to come into existence after 1982, the media got hold of it somewhere and it entered urban legend. I have never heard a Falkland Islander refer to it as 365 (although I have seen many tv programs say we do!!) and I think it was probably a joke either Military or between a couple of people. BennyTec ( talk) 12:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Justin, but it's not really patience, just faint amusement. I've gotta avoid playing his game though, I suspect he only comes here to wind people up and lives off of people replying to his 'ideas'. Ranger Steve ( talk) 22:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
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) 22:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry - I guess I didn't understand what your edit summary meant. I thought it was an instruction, not part of a sequence of events. - Ahunt ( talk) 16:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Justin, I can't understand why you delete my edits on the Gibraltar article and then post the following comment in my page: "You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gibraltar." I have not intended to start an edit war, just eliminated a reference that seems controversial and was not supported by any reference (1) and repositioned some uncontroverted facts (2):
1) The article began with the expression "Gibraltar (...) is a self-governing British overseas territory (...)". This was not supported by any objective reference in the article and, in fact, it is something not endorsed by the UN (see below), which at least provides some ground for not accepting the self-government of Gibraltar as a self-evident fact. Therefore, I substituted it for some referenced facts.
2) The article referenced the fact that Gibraltar is on the UN's non self-governing territories list but British and Gibraltarian polititians think that it should be removed. Only it was lost somewhere in the middle of this (long) article. I repositioned this information to the introduction of the article where it summarises the territory's political nature. It does not matter if 50 years ago it was the UK who nominated Gibraltar for the list: this status is reviewed every year and has not yet been reverted by UN's Special Committee.
What surprises me is: I would have expected that if you disagree with my edits, you would discuss them or, if you think they do not offer a holistic view, you complete them with additional referenced facts. Instead of that, you just deleted the edits and accused me of edit warring.
I will appreciate your discussing the changes and contributing with additional insight and referenced facts. Please do not merely undo my edits.
Kind regards. Imalbornoz ( talk) 22:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Greetings, I removed the cat "Whaling" from several location articles as they are included in the new category Category:Whaling stations. Same as how ackee and saltfish might initially be filed under Category:Jamaican culture at first, but after the creation of Category:Jamaican cuisine it'd be redundant to have it appear in both a category and its subcategory. Works? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 19:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Please don't take this as an attack, just some constructive feedback. Lashing out at others just increases tempers on both sides and makes your "opponent" even more determined to have his way, which makes you even madder, and so on. If you bear in mind that we're all dead in the long run, does that help to put Wikipedia in perspective? When I get too worked up about stuff here, I try to remember that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Please review the restore I made of this article to its previous version. You seem to have had a problem with my addition of Puerto Rico to the article on Decolonization [5]. Your reason, though not entirely clear from your choice not to Discuss [6] first, appears to be "too much detail".
I disagree: if detail were not given, no encyclopedia would ever be written, don't you think?
This information was not found anywhere else in wikipedia and, if you thought the detail was too much, please condense it instead into something more of your liking. - thanks.
A second reason you mentioned for deleting the entire section was "POV". I see two problems with this judgement here:
I disagree there was any POV in the edits, certaily not of my own. Maybe there was POV from the authors of the cited works. In that case, why remove the information instead of entering the information supporting the other POV so the net effect is a neutral point of view?
There will always be POVs to everything - unless the "everything" is a fact - facts are not negotiable. This brings up the edit you made in removing a citation needed for the claimed long name of the Special Committee. Such long name would be a fact, and as such you should have had no problem adding the source. Instead the citation needed template was deleted - in my opinion a poor use of judgement.
Another option you and I would have in coming to an agreement on this is to spin off the SCD-Puerto Rico section into a new article of its own. Please let me know you thoughts on this.
For now, I have restored the article to its previous version asking that you edit that version presenting what you know to be the opposing point of view. Wikipedia is about presenting information, not about concealing it and, as such, keeping the whole Puerto Rico section out is not negotiable unless the details I introduced are already given elsewhere in wikipedia. Thanks for helping present a neutral POV, Rob99324 ( talk) 20:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Suggest you read this policy. We achieve a WP:NPOV by presenting all sides of the argument and I don't think you can claim you had a balanced POV by quoting Cuba and Venzuela's comments at the C24. Last time I looked the C24 considered a number of territories. You added way too much detail on an article on the C24 itself, it became an article about what the C24 allegedly said about Puerto Rico. Looking at the C24 report on Puerto Rico your edits weren't balanced.
I have no agenda here, I'm neither American or from Puerto Rico. As a neutral observer your edit was very partisan. Strongly held beliefs don't trump wiki policies. Justin talk 20:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts. The article is way too limited and way too short in its presentation of the C24. Additional information is needed, not only on the Puerto Rico case, but also on the case of still non self-governing territories as well as countries which, like Puerto Rico, have have been removed from the non self-governing list but where objections and controversy still exist regarding the true status of the country. Without the additional information, the article is not that useful: a stub in the true meaning of the word. You can help by expanding the article and I suggest a template to the effect be added as soon as possible. The article has more potential.
While it may initially appear that "way too much detail was added about Puerto Rico on an article on the C24 itself", and appear that "it became an article about what the C24 allegedly said about Puerto Rico", with time -- if allowed -- the article can grow to include relevant C24 details about -each- of the territories of the C24, making it more useful. This objective was self-evident from the sub-headings initially added. Again, "you have to start somewhere", as the saying goes, or otherwise an encyclopedia would never be written. The POV observation may have some weight, but removing -everything- that's added will never get the article to mature past its current stub state. A more welcoming approach to article editing fosters its growth and encorages a NPOV on its own.
I will get back to you with a proposed revision as my time permits. Rob99324 ( talk) 22:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
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) 20:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
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) 20:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Thule1981.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. B ( talk) 02:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I hope I only have to ask this once. Please stay off it. Thanks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your message about this. You said the IP has been blocked, but there's nothing in the block log; do you know something I don't? Xyl 54 ( talk) 19:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I usually don't bite the newcomers, but in some cases they bite you like pitbulls ;). Thanks, mate.-- Darius ( talk) 19:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Justine, we need to discuss this further. Previously there was one discussion where it was agreed that the islanders find it derogatory, which is understandable, but that doesn't mean at all that the Argentinians used it that way, as you keep insisting. Nor have you ever provided any references to back up the claim nor a reference which is inline with wikipedia's rules. And consensus to push a falsehood surely isn't what wikipedia is all about? Chuckarg33 ( talk) 11:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Sure you are pushing a falshood because what you claim just isn't true, is not sourced or reference, and I've pointed this out several times before but you just push that POV. The day you have a reference you will then be able to make those claims. Chuckarg33 ( talk) 16:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Justin, I can't understand why you delete all my edit. It's new information, usefull about Investors in Bs. As. and it's my text, I didn't copy-paste information from other site and I put a link to the oficial page of buenos aires goverment. Please let me know. I want to put more about the economy of the city. Regards. Laura —Preceding unsigned comment added by La ponja ( talk • contribs) 03:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Justin A Kuntz. If something is hidden to 2082 it might be the RAF Canberras from Chile. Feel free to delete them if it's bad Wiki policy. http://www.spyflight.co.uk/chile.htm contradicts RAF and Britain's Small Wars, but I don't know the credibility of spyflight.co.uk. --Regards, Necessary Evil ( talk) 23:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
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) 01:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear Justin, Just a note of thanks for your work to protect the improvements to the South Georgia article that we achieved consensus on. Michael Glass ( talk) 09:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Justin. Even if Wikipedia has a commandment: "Be bold", I should have to discuss with you before reverting your edit on "Many Branch point", given our collaboration in the past. Frankly, I automatically though that the editon's author was Kernel Saunders, who some time ago expressed concerns about this article. My apologies for the confussion, and althought I keep my point of view on the infobox issue, I accept the majority view. Thank you.-- Darius ( talk) 17:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
To be frank, I am pretty ticked off that you made this into an ANI incident. If you had made your points to me first, I would have freely admitted (as I have done in the ANI thread) that I made a mistake and we could have moved on to important stuff. Issue resolved. – ukexpat ( talk) 21:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
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) 02:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I did not mean to suggest that the Indians played any part in the Falklands conflict; obviously that's not the case - I was simply replying to the previous editor's incorrect assertion that only the British used Sea Harriers at all. Since the article is primarily about Argentine air forces, my inclusion of "British" just before Sea Harrier serves to make the article more comprehensible. British is used throughout the article in a similar fashion and I believe it serves its purpose where I added it. My apologies for any misunderstanding regarding my edit comment -- Rydra Wong ( talk) 14:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Ciao! Hope now the page is no more screwed. I think the problem was that there are too many images, which could give problems in little resolution screens; now they are all in a row (I seem). Let me know... Ciao and good work. -- '''Attilios''' ( talk) 08:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Any British sources will be welcome, Justin. This is the kind of collaboration we need in order to avoid future claims of PoV from 'both sides' :). Nice idea. I think that we must follow the pattern of our previous work on GADA 601. Probably I will be working on the April 3 article during the next weekend. Thanks.-- Darius ( talk) 16:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Justin, thanks for your msg in my "Talk". Unfortunately I don't know of any first-hand accounts about that action, that's why my comment/question to Jor70. and i do recognize your effort to show neutrality. If I know something will touch base. Cheers, DPdH ( talk) 11:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Please stop being nasty, Justin. Calling other editors "obnoxious" is totally out of order. The rottweiler joke was meant in the same light that Richard Dawkins is called Darwin's rottweiler. I even put a smiley face after the comment. All I can say is that it was a joke: you can either accept that, or not, it's up to you, but I am telling you it was meant to be a lighthearted joke. As was the stuff about the refereeing - I just found it funny that in the same week we both turned to Narson and Pfainuk for comment. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Still working on the South Georgia article; I think it will take shape during this week. Just a couple of questions for you, Justin.
First of all, what should be the scope?. I intended the subject to be only the April 3 action, and just a brief intro dealing with the previous incident at Leith, Astiz, the 'workers', all that stuff you surely know well.
The other point is about sources. I found a quite unbiased account from the Argentine side, Contraalmirante Mayorga's No Vencidos. Despite the title, his narrative is far away from the usual jingoistic rethoric of some Argentine apologists, and exposes the Guerrico fiasco without excuses. There is another interesting Argentine book, Guerra bajo la Cruz del Sur, the most self-critical essay I know regarding Argentine armed forces. The author was a former member of the CANA (Argentine version of the Fleet Air Arm), but unfortunately he doesn't mention the Grytviken affair in depth. On the other hand, I think we should follow Freedman's official history and Britain Small Wars. These sources (specially Freedman) give us a realistic account from the British side.
Just to be frankly brutal, “Too Few, Too Far” is as partisan and unreliable as the page referring to the 'gallant' Guerrico: they claim a 100-1 ratio in favour of the Argentine troops (Freedman acknowledge not more than 50 troops), and the incredible (to say the least) statement that the British commander 'imposed his terms' during the capitulation. I wish to hear your opinion. Thanks.-- Darius ( talk) 20:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Justin, there is no consensus for this wording. I am in the middle of posting my views on the talk page. Please do not revert this any further. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted your reversion on Type 42 destroyer.
Where there is a difference in what several sources say, it is not original research to have footnotes saying what the differences between the sources is.
Where there are several sources that you would expect to be reliable, it is appropriate to record what the differences in sources are using inline citations - this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references.
The is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check whose aim is having facts in Wikipedia verified by multiple independent sources to make it the most authoritative source of information in the world. Reverting multiple references goes against this project.
The bulk of the text of the articles on modern RN warships have no citations whatsoever and frequent errors. Perhaps it would be better if you put your effort into improving verifiability by replacing unsourced material with material backed by proper inline citations.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 20:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Had you waited a few minutes you would have seen that I had fixed the link. I have found that saving while editing is necessary to avoid edit conflicts. Sometimes the save results in a link that I then fix once I have had time to check on the disambiguation page. Regards, Acad Ronin ( talk) 16:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, Justin, the first version of 1982 invasion of South Georgia is done. I decided that the scope must include Davidoff incident and the British reaction; without them, the narrative would be hopelessly incomplete. As usual, I'am open to criticism and, of course, feel free to edit it without remorse. Regards.-- Darius ( talk) 01:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
What was wrong with the Gibraltar link I posted? The link provided the locations of residential areas, which is valuable information. Inkan1969 ( talk) 10:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I can live with a certain mixture of Spanish and English headers. Grupo de Tareas 79.1 would be more confusing than Task Group 79.1 but South Atlantic Theatre of Operations sounds like a US or UK organisation. Teatro de Operaciones del Atlántico Sur was the name in 1982. Often the non-English name of opponents are used i.e. "Luftwaffe" instead of "the German Air Force" Battle of Britain#Luftwaffe strategy, First Battle of El Alamein#Panzer Army Africa attacks. According to the talk page you agreed in using the Spanish names, but you removed the Spanish names [2] - opposite your "agreed to put in the Spanish names". This is English Wikipedia, but not everything should be translated, i.e. " Flying fish missile", " Super battle standard" fighter bomber, " Twenty-fifth of May" aircraft carrier, " River big-water" coast guard cutter, " Admiral Irízar", " Great River" air base … --Regards, Necessary Evil ( talk) 16:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
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) 23:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I want to invite you to the ongoing discussion in Talk:Ushuaia about the entrance text and the title of the southermost city. I think the section "southernmost city" in the article is good but to point out in the first sentence that Ushuaia IS the southernmost city is not fair. Dentren | Talk 08:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, my RFA was closed recently with a final tally of 75 ½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your support and I hope I can count on it in the future. Even though it didn't pass, it had a nearly 2 to 1 ratio of support and I am quite encouraged by those results. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns that were brought up and resubmit in a few months. If you would like to assist in my betterment and/or co-nominate me in the future, please let me know on my talk page. Special thanks go to Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — talk |
Persistently accusing someone of supporting or excusing terrorist activity is a serious issue. I have asked you to apologise/withdraw on the talk page concerned and strongly recommend that you take up that opportunity. -- Snowded TALK 18:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
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) 03:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The term 365 for mutton seemed to come into existence after 1982, the media got hold of it somewhere and it entered urban legend. I have never heard a Falkland Islander refer to it as 365 (although I have seen many tv programs say we do!!) and I think it was probably a joke either Military or between a couple of people. BennyTec ( talk) 12:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Justin, but it's not really patience, just faint amusement. I've gotta avoid playing his game though, I suspect he only comes here to wind people up and lives off of people replying to his 'ideas'. Ranger Steve ( talk) 22:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
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) 22:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry - I guess I didn't understand what your edit summary meant. I thought it was an instruction, not part of a sequence of events. - Ahunt ( talk) 16:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Justin, I can't understand why you delete my edits on the Gibraltar article and then post the following comment in my page: "You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gibraltar." I have not intended to start an edit war, just eliminated a reference that seems controversial and was not supported by any reference (1) and repositioned some uncontroverted facts (2):
1) The article began with the expression "Gibraltar (...) is a self-governing British overseas territory (...)". This was not supported by any objective reference in the article and, in fact, it is something not endorsed by the UN (see below), which at least provides some ground for not accepting the self-government of Gibraltar as a self-evident fact. Therefore, I substituted it for some referenced facts.
2) The article referenced the fact that Gibraltar is on the UN's non self-governing territories list but British and Gibraltarian polititians think that it should be removed. Only it was lost somewhere in the middle of this (long) article. I repositioned this information to the introduction of the article where it summarises the territory's political nature. It does not matter if 50 years ago it was the UK who nominated Gibraltar for the list: this status is reviewed every year and has not yet been reverted by UN's Special Committee.
What surprises me is: I would have expected that if you disagree with my edits, you would discuss them or, if you think they do not offer a holistic view, you complete them with additional referenced facts. Instead of that, you just deleted the edits and accused me of edit warring.
I will appreciate your discussing the changes and contributing with additional insight and referenced facts. Please do not merely undo my edits.
Kind regards. Imalbornoz ( talk) 22:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Greetings, I removed the cat "Whaling" from several location articles as they are included in the new category Category:Whaling stations. Same as how ackee and saltfish might initially be filed under Category:Jamaican culture at first, but after the creation of Category:Jamaican cuisine it'd be redundant to have it appear in both a category and its subcategory. Works? MatthewVanitas ( talk) 19:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Please don't take this as an attack, just some constructive feedback. Lashing out at others just increases tempers on both sides and makes your "opponent" even more determined to have his way, which makes you even madder, and so on. If you bear in mind that we're all dead in the long run, does that help to put Wikipedia in perspective? When I get too worked up about stuff here, I try to remember that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Please review the restore I made of this article to its previous version. You seem to have had a problem with my addition of Puerto Rico to the article on Decolonization [5]. Your reason, though not entirely clear from your choice not to Discuss [6] first, appears to be "too much detail".
I disagree: if detail were not given, no encyclopedia would ever be written, don't you think?
This information was not found anywhere else in wikipedia and, if you thought the detail was too much, please condense it instead into something more of your liking. - thanks.
A second reason you mentioned for deleting the entire section was "POV". I see two problems with this judgement here:
I disagree there was any POV in the edits, certaily not of my own. Maybe there was POV from the authors of the cited works. In that case, why remove the information instead of entering the information supporting the other POV so the net effect is a neutral point of view?
There will always be POVs to everything - unless the "everything" is a fact - facts are not negotiable. This brings up the edit you made in removing a citation needed for the claimed long name of the Special Committee. Such long name would be a fact, and as such you should have had no problem adding the source. Instead the citation needed template was deleted - in my opinion a poor use of judgement.
Another option you and I would have in coming to an agreement on this is to spin off the SCD-Puerto Rico section into a new article of its own. Please let me know you thoughts on this.
For now, I have restored the article to its previous version asking that you edit that version presenting what you know to be the opposing point of view. Wikipedia is about presenting information, not about concealing it and, as such, keeping the whole Puerto Rico section out is not negotiable unless the details I introduced are already given elsewhere in wikipedia. Thanks for helping present a neutral POV, Rob99324 ( talk) 20:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Suggest you read this policy. We achieve a WP:NPOV by presenting all sides of the argument and I don't think you can claim you had a balanced POV by quoting Cuba and Venzuela's comments at the C24. Last time I looked the C24 considered a number of territories. You added way too much detail on an article on the C24 itself, it became an article about what the C24 allegedly said about Puerto Rico. Looking at the C24 report on Puerto Rico your edits weren't balanced.
I have no agenda here, I'm neither American or from Puerto Rico. As a neutral observer your edit was very partisan. Strongly held beliefs don't trump wiki policies. Justin talk 20:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts. The article is way too limited and way too short in its presentation of the C24. Additional information is needed, not only on the Puerto Rico case, but also on the case of still non self-governing territories as well as countries which, like Puerto Rico, have have been removed from the non self-governing list but where objections and controversy still exist regarding the true status of the country. Without the additional information, the article is not that useful: a stub in the true meaning of the word. You can help by expanding the article and I suggest a template to the effect be added as soon as possible. The article has more potential.
While it may initially appear that "way too much detail was added about Puerto Rico on an article on the C24 itself", and appear that "it became an article about what the C24 allegedly said about Puerto Rico", with time -- if allowed -- the article can grow to include relevant C24 details about -each- of the territories of the C24, making it more useful. This objective was self-evident from the sub-headings initially added. Again, "you have to start somewhere", as the saying goes, or otherwise an encyclopedia would never be written. The POV observation may have some weight, but removing -everything- that's added will never get the article to mature past its current stub state. A more welcoming approach to article editing fosters its growth and encorages a NPOV on its own.
I will get back to you with a proposed revision as my time permits. Rob99324 ( talk) 22:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
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) 20:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
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) 20:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Thule1981.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. B ( talk) 02:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I hope I only have to ask this once. Please stay off it. Thanks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your message about this. You said the IP has been blocked, but there's nothing in the block log; do you know something I don't? Xyl 54 ( talk) 19:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I usually don't bite the newcomers, but in some cases they bite you like pitbulls ;). Thanks, mate.-- Darius ( talk) 19:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |