Home     E-mail

——————————————— Wee Curry Monster's Talk Page ——————————————— Please note that it is 3:23 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

Have a nice day !

Running with scissors is too dangerous for Wikipedia!

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Wee Curry Monster. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Modest Barnstar
		You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.2.116 (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WCM, the following discussion may be of interest to you: [1]. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wee Curry Monster. A while ago I sent you an email concerning an unblock request. The user has emailed me again about this, and, since you didn't reply to my email, I thought I would drop you a note here. Gaba p‎ is blocked as a sockpuppet of Alex79818‎, but he denies being the same person. Here you said that you know Alex79818‎'s real life identity. Gaba p‎ has now given me fairly persuasive evidence of his real life identity, so a comparison of the two should be enough to settle the matter. Could you help? Anything you email me would be treated in strict confidence, and used for no other purpose than settling this issue. If you prefer not to reveal all of what you know it may still be possible to tell me enough for me to decide whether the "two" people are really one or not. I would be very grateful if you could give me some information to help me resolve this. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually rather uncomfortable with the idea of one user passing that info to another and would highly suggest this is done via the foundation in case there are any future complaints. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WCM, I see the Falkland Islands problems are starting again. Not to be a burden, but our pal Lecen continues with his insults ([2]). I still find it funny that he has something against you (specially since you really haven't done anything or said anything against him), but it seems he thinks "FA stars" are some sort of ticket that allows him free insults and intimidation on people. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ow, he did. See this. MarshalN20, you should consider stop calling your two friends and resort to tag team tactics. It isn't very nice. This is what? The second time you call your friend to help you out in your campaing against me? Ow, yes... it is! But this is just a suggestion, of course. --Lecen (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you turn everything concerning the "Empire of Brazil" into a personal matter? I am still amazed that you insist I am "friends" with Wee Curry Monster and Cambalachero. Our relationship does not go beyond the professional (here in Wikipedia), and the only thing that "ties us" is our interest in maintaining the WP:NPOV supported by history literature in English.

If you're so interested in finding evidence of the three of us conspiring together, the closest thing you'll find is: here. I call dibs on pinstripe.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• WCM, wanna see interesting? Please refer to WP:Requests for mediation/Falkland Islands, so many malfunctions... so little time~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Subhas Chandra Bose; Hawkeye on corps commanders; Nick-D on American special forces Op-ed: The Land on commemorating World War I

• Craig Ferguson: "Captain America~! I command you to... *bleep~!*" --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 23:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arana-Southern Treaty Nigelpwsmith —Preceding undated comment added 21:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC). As you noted, there are increasing problems with articles concerning the Falkland Islands. British contributors write pages which are then butchered by Argentine users to represent the Argentine view and totally distort the history. I am an amateur historian concentrating on Falklands history. I added a page for the Arana-Southern Treaty (the Convention of Settlement) only to find that some Argentine contributor has thoroughly changed it. He's removed links, changed the text and removed whole sections relevant to the historical document. He's even suggested that the Treaty was derogated - it has not.[reply]

I've tried to go back in and correct some of the mess he's created. Some of the material he's added does give a more balanced view, but his editing does not. I accept that the source for much of the material was the Pepper and Pascoe document. However the treaty is online at Wiki-source and is very relevant to the disputed sovereignty.

I intend to go back to the document and adjust it again to include the material he has removed. However, I will ask Wikipedia to lock the file afterwards to prevent any further tampering. The Falklands dispute is heating up and it appears that Argentina is spoiling for another fight - to get at the oil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigelpwsmith (talk • contribs) 21:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel, you can't just copy someone else's work, you have to create an original piece of writing that reflects all sources. Whether Argentina is spoiling for a fight or not, to be honest I don't care. What I do care about is writing text that reflects all significant viewpoints. As you will notice from my user page, I upset nationalists of all persuasions, you need to avoid falling into the trap of reflecting a particular nationalist viewpoint. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to your input on Arana-Southern Treaty, the article has been improved and the Argentine bias removed. I suspect that they were intent on showing the Convention of Settlement had been derogated to try and infer that Argentina did not end their legal claim on the Falklands in 1850. Their documentation suggests that the diplomats did discuss breaking or disestablishing the treaty, but there is nothing that proves that it was and plenty which shows that the treaty remains. Not only the fact that the treaty was published by the FCO, but also because it was referred to by historians and Argentine politicians as a culpable mistake which legally compromised the Argentine claim. I'm also very concerned that the source of the Argentine documents, the educational establishment, quoted documents found by Dr. José María Ruda, the discredited Argentine representative who misled the United Nations Committee on Decolonisation concerning the history of the Falkland Islands in 1964. It would be a grave mistake for Wikipedia to rely on information which is questionable from a source who has been known to deliberately deceive on behalf of his nationalistic objectives.

So thanks again. Nigelpwsmith (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking of adding a summary of the Soviet approach to Argentina with offers of arms and intelligence support, and the price they expected in return. Its in Gavshon and Rice. Maybe in the Third Countries section? Would it add materially? What do you think? Irondome (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not being familiar with the reference, I presume you're referring to the Belgrano book? I tend to be slightly suspect of works published shortly after the war as many make errors of historical fact or have been contradicted by later information (and tend to be somewhat sensationalist). I would personally check the reported facts against a later reference work eg Freedman and propose an edit accordingly. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah its the Sinking of the Belgrano. (Gavshon and Rice 1983) Will check against more mature refs and if consistent, will re-contact you here. Is "proposing an edit" a specific process with its own format and place? (i.e article talk) Just checking because relatively new. No hurry, I can see you are busy. Cheers. Irondome (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your message on my talk page. I'm afraid you won't find the reply very helpful, but right now it's the best I can offer, as I have less time available for Wikipedia now than I used to have. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the AAF losses stated too low? Especially losses in high performance jets. It seems to contradict the wiki article discussing AAF losses Argentine air forces in the Falklands War. Just a thought. Irondome (talk) 04:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it. Double checked figures. I was way off- beam Irondome (talk) 04:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Chiang Kai-shek; Nick-D on the Falklands War Interview: Article writers discuss biographies Op-ed: Nick-D examines using news articles as sources

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Again, thanks for your kind words on ANI, no prizes for guessing why I gave it a miss. Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 15:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Seriously, a WP:PETARD??? Oh my... I think I can safely say that I'm thinking what you're thinking right now. Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vandalism warning warning For the fifth or so time, read WP:NOTVAND. Do. Not. Call. Me. A. Vandal. Again. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TC has reversed his block, which is what I had anticipated, as I figured he wasn't aware of the previous discussions. This is a borderline case that some admins block for, some admins warn and prepare to block for. In general, I tend to warn first, then instantly block if they don't get the point. This is a matter of trying to be fair, actually, and allowing us all "one mistake". Getting to your tagging of vandalism, I'm sorry, but you are mistaken here. Obviously it isn't "equal" to his mistakes, but you still need to not tag those edits as vandalism.

According to WP:VANDAL: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. This is an objective standard, not a subjective on. It goes on to say: Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful.

In this case, I'm not doubting your logic, or the correctness of your position in any way whatsoever. However, as an outsider, it isn't my place to force a point of view. If I chose a side, I'm no longer an outsider, after all. Since the source of the site is part is from one of the parties in the article topic itself, it complicates the NPOV issue to the point that it must be decided by a consensus on the talk page or DRN. Even POV edits, as you claim his is (and you may very well be correct) are NOT vandalism at Wikipedia, and tagging them as such is considered disruptive, and yes, another admin could come up and block YOU if you kept doing it. This is why I am trying to help you here and give you a little guidance. You should only tag for vandalism when it is clearly and universally accepted that the edit is designed to undermine Wikipedia. Whole article blanking, adding non-sense (ie:"Brits sucks!" or that kind of stuff) or similar. Otherwise, it might be a violation of NPOV, it might even be 100% incorrect, but if the person adding the material can be assumed to believe that this is a proper edit, then it isn't vandalism. You aren't alone, over half the tags for "vandalism" on Wikipedia, aren't vandalism, which is why admins can't just look at the talk page of an editor and assume that the warnings are valid without confirming them individually.

Now the article is protected, it is easy to use the talk page there (it appears your version was the last one "frozen" for the week), build a consensus. If he reverts after the consensus, it isn't vandalism, but it is "disruptive warring against consensus" assuming an admin can see the consensus on the talk page. And I would gladly and quickly issue a block on the 2nd time in a short period he did this. Yes, I know you would like me to just permanently block him now and be done with it, but I would show you or anyone else the same consideration in a dispute, which is to give all parties the equal chance to discuss first. You are free to disagree and debating isn't going to be fruitful here, but I strongly suggest you take my advice on board regarding vandalism tagging, as my interpretation isn't controversial here.

Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]