User talk:Wee Curry Monster/Archive 11
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Wee Curry Monster. 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 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Source for Heleen Mees' residence
About your edit to the Heleen Mees article-
Mees' own website says "She lives and works in Brooklyn, New York."
Can I add that (her website) as the source? --TheCockroach (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Maybe of interest...
This is a little naughty but, regarding our persistent IP friend from the Hillsborough talk page, this is quite illuminating (in a "the end of the stick you've somehow managed to get is not even wrong" kind of way). I keep meaning to stop replying and have resolved properly that my most recent reply is my last - there's nothing more to say. 2.25.107.215 (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oh I've seen worse, you want to try dealing with Argentine editors who believe the revisionista version of history. WCMemail 11:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Seeking a little help from my friends ;)
Hi J., first of all thanks for making me aware of the starvation issue on Talk:Skirmish at Many Branch Point. I need a little (or not so little) favour. The guy who assessed my latest article (Prizren Incident (1999)) against the five MilHist criteria found some grammar flaws in the text. Can you help me to perform a grammar check and reassess that point?. Thanks in advance.--Darius (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- To reassess you can try the talk page Talk:Prizren Incident (1999). Open edit source. You will find that WPMILHIST has five criteria (B1=y, B2=n, B3=y, B4=n, B5=y) and if you see that all is OK with the article's grammar, fill criteron B4 with a 'y' (yes). Thanks for you time J, Regards.--Darius (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks a million, my friend! And as always, count on me for anything you might need...Cheers!--Darius (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Archive bot on Hillsborough talk
Hi, very sensible to set up a bot on that talk page, but it has moved it's first archiving of posts to Talk:Hillsborough disaster/Archive 7 and the only other archive page is Talk:Hillsborough disaster/Archive 1 plus that's the only one showing. I'll mention this on the talk page as well, but I thought you might know how to fix it. Thanks. 2.25.107.215 (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, hopefully this will have fixed it. 2.25.107.215 (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, that should do it. I'll fix it now. WCMemail 17:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry
I now understand the point you were trying to make[1] and assure you that usually I am quite careful to read thoroughly before reverting. That sort of language is truly horrid and the editor using such language should be reprimanded and blocked until they can be WP:CIVIL. —This lousy T-shirt— (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- No worries mate I fully understand why you did it, I trust you can understand my frustration at the suggestion I'm equally to blame. WCMemail 20:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Think of the children
Hi WCM. First of all, please know this, I am never one to shy away from profanity. However for the sake of the children, could you please refrain from excessive expletives in the portion of your comment that will show up in the edit summary (mainly because it shows up without context). Note I am requesting only refraining from that which is excessive (in my opinion the word cunt three times is rather excessive). I take no objection to a reasonable amount of profanity in an edit summary, and I certainly know Drmies can be quite liberal with the occasional F-Bomb. Say, for example what the fuck are you talking about Kelapstick, you should go Piss Up a Rope, would be a reasonable, and acceptable edit summary in response to this message. Also please note that I am not accusing you of wrong doing, I understand you were quoting directly, however, I personally would appreciate your toning it down for the edit summary (but of course not the message). As mentioned above, these are generally without context, and... well you know... you know where it goes. Please feel free to disregard/delete this message if you think I am being a pretentious dick, I am just trying to help. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- No worries, I appreciate your message and apologise if remarks made in frustration caused you concern. I don't have a problem with people talking to me in a direct and forthright manner at all. Cheers and good health. WCMemail 20:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Kelapstick, I couldn't have said it any better: you are a pretentious dick, and I'm flipping a bird northward, with a little note tied to its leg saying "Fuck you too!". Seriously, I don't rightly know what this is about, but it seems like a good section for a brief message re: Ian Gow: talk page please. K-stick, you're welcome to weigh in there as well. Thanks WCM, Drmies (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks
I really get very strange vandalism of my talk page from time to time. Goodness knows why. Thanks for reverting the latest idiot. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
The Wikipedia today
As always, Homer says it best. But in Homer's case, those are actual rules. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Eh? WCMemail 22:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- OK I get it now, I appreciate the sentiment, thanks. WCMemail 23:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
DYK for José María Pinedo
 | On 30 May 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article José María Pinedo, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Col. José María Pinedo (pictured) took part in Argentina's War of Independence, Civil Wars, and Cisplatine War, but failed to resist the British return to the Falkland Islands? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/José María Pinedo. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Falkland Islands FAC
I think the article has been stable for quite some time. It also had a peer review, and there are no major issues with it at the moment. The plan is to co-nominate the article with you. What is your opinion? Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 18:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Fantastic. Here's a direct link to the nomination: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Falkland Islands/archive1.--MarshalN20 Talk 21:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Warrior under Army 2020
http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/army-2020-unit-structures-and-equipment.html
Disagreeand says it is six. Now, can you give a counter source that says Warrior will be seven soldiers under Army 2020? I would like that.Phd8511 (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- No, your sources doesn't say that, its speculating it will reduce to 6. WCMemail 00:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- The first source was not speculating; it was an Army Document. I'm asking you for a counter source which says that the Warrior WCSP stays a 7 dismounted men.
Phd8511 (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Err, that source doesn't state the capacity of Warrior will be 6 dismounts. It states an infantry section will reduce from 10 to 9. For information, a Warrior FV510 has a crew of 3 (driver, gunner and commander) and space for 7 dismounts. That isn't changing. WCSP does not yet include changing the arrangement of the dismounts. And asking me to prove a negative, really? WCMemail 12:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Falklands war
I suggest that you be careful about just reverting. You certainly shouldn't do it if it making you even slightly testy. Lots of us have this on watchlists. You can always ping me in particular if you need support. --John (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Point taken, we all get frustrated from time to time and I suppose I should walk away. Thanks for the offer. WCMemail 20:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
RfC
The RfC at Talk:Ian Gow has now been been closed. The car is to be named. I am perfectly happy with that. Scolaire (talk) 09:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Nae problems, thanks for the heads up. WCMemail 16:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Falklands War, consequences
Hi WCM. Thank you for the update on how things are going for you. I hope the traveling is enjoyable. Steve mentioned that he would like to read some more information about the consequences from the Falklands War. If you have some time, could you please add some information about that particular topic? Thanks! [:D]--MarshalN20 Talk 13:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- MarshalN20 [2] Hows that? WCMemail 15:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- That is much better WCM, thank you for the academic work. Steve also mentioned something about the landmines, but all I have read on them seem to indicate that they caused more of a scare than any significant consequence. Considering I may be wrong, please correct me if I am wrong by adding something about it in the article. (By the way, I honestly can't believe this article is so close to getting promoted to FA!) Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 16:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- MarshalN20 Done, can you check out how I'm formatting the references, I'm not familiar with the templates you're using? WCMemail 17:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, of course. I will also c/e the material. Very good information.--MarshalN20 Talk 17:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations
Thanks for the note. It seemed like an impossible task, but it was done. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- You're now on the content records of the project. Congrats!--MarshalN20 Talk 22:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Recent edit summary
While it appears you may have been provoked, your edit summary turns the glare from the IP behavior to yours, who should know better. Please do better.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
My handling of personal attacks
After your generous apology I looked over my own actions. While I feel I was correct to warn you I feel I could have done it in a better way.
I did not ask you what led up to it or try to work out a solution.
I am attempting to create a user page with some more helpful wording: User:Chillum/LetsTalkAboutNPA.
My first goal it to give a final warning in the friendliest and clearest way I can.
I think it is important to give a final warning before blocking anyone for personal attacks with the exception of disruption only accounts and such. Any established editor deserves a warning before a block and I want to give that warning without causing further upset.
My second goal is to figure out what led to the incident and who else was involved. My goal is to act reasonably and fairly. If there are mitigating circumstances then I am far more likely to ask a person simply not to do it again rather than block. If there are others baiting, trolling or outright participating in the personal attacks then they should be held to the same standard.
My final goal is to open dialog and appear to be someone who is not out to get them but rather help them solve the underlying problem.
I would really love your perspective of our recent interaction to see how I can improve User:Chillum/LetsTalkAboutNPA. Feel free to use the talk page there or even make direct edits.
I think this sort of document needs input from both sides of a personal attack enforcement and you seem a reasonable person. Your being on the other side will give you perspective I lack.
Thanks. Chillum 18:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for the invite, rest assured I will take you up on it. Regards, WCMemail 18:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Anyone else watching this talk page is welcome to join in, and anyone else you can think of that may have perspective on the matter. The more the merrier, glad you are going to be involved. Chillum 19:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Way to go
I was following the ANI conversation re the link-porn-to-kids-cartoon-article and was about to chime in when it sort of resolved itself (but will still keep an eye on it). The issue you highlighted is precisely the kind of thing I meant when I created my user page message. Tks. Moriori (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Rosas
WCM, if you can, take a look at the last chapter of "Argentina's Partisan Past: Nationalism and the Politics of History". It's a good reading if one wants to understand Rosas' legacy since 1989. --Lecen (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- I know naval historian Brian Vale, an expert in Latin American naval history between 1800 and 1830. Would you like me to ask him something regarding Jewett? --Lecen (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Lecen, yes please, the article rather neglects the Brazilian connection at the moment. WCMemail 19:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussion on the admin noticeboard about 'Best known for IP'
I've started a discussion on the admin noticeboard about the Best known for IP, which could be of interest. PhilKnight (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions notification - MOS
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux
|
NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Martin's unblock request
Not that long ago, DeFacto made a spurious accusation at ANI that I was a sock of Martin, and you hauled me off to SPI to force the issue. That was the right decision. I know you know better than to raise vague SPI accusations without a corresponding SPI. If the behavior wasn't problematic enough to start an investigation at the time, I don't see any reason the issue should be raised now (unless you're filing an SPI now, of course). I'd take it as a favor if you would consider striking or deleting those remarks. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- I won't be striking those remarks but I will highlight that they weren't intended to imply you were a sock puppet. I would appreciate the assumption of a little good faith though. WCMemail 23:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to imply that you thought I was a sock—you made that clear at the time that you thought it unlikely ("Martin isn't stupid" were your exact words, IIRC). But raising socking without evidence is black-letter disruptive editing. You recognized it for what it was when DeFacto did it; I don't see how what you're doing is appreciably different. That part of your argument is made in bad faith. I'd appreciate it if you would either file the SPI or strike. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- I could easily raise an SPI but do you really want to compel me to file a fairly straight forward SPI that would show Martin socking in the middle of his appeal? I haven't done so for good faith reasons; namely that it would seriously prejudice his appeal. However, I can't ignore it happened and the only reason I haven't taken it further is that it wasn't too serious. WCMemail 23:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Wee, you and I work in different areas (if you can call my stuff "work") so I don't know what you've seen, but I have seen a fake Martinvl sock recently, also not doing anything too serious. Somebody is stirring the pot - probably the usual shit. Might be responsible for what you've seen, might not. Not that that has anything to do with the power of your main argument. NebY (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your remarks, yes it could be someone trying to fake Martin's style but I seriously doubt it. It simply struck me as a half-hearted attempt at socking by someone whose heart wasn't in it. That is the main reason I would prefer not to make too big a deal about it. WCMemail 00:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- WCM, if it's a big enough deal to raise at the unblocking discussion then (in my mind) it's a big enough deal to warrant a formal SPI. If it's not a big deal (and you didn't think it was at the time, and that was probably the right call) then let Martin's unblock appeal succeed or fail on the edits that we know are his. (To answer your specific question, yes, I would rather you file an SPI if striking isn't an option.) Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for filing the SPI. That was the right thing to do. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, well, and this is the depressing part, he's probably shot himself in the foot with this. I really didn't want to go down that route. WCMemail 22:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for filing the SPI. That was the right thing to do. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Not sure about the relevance, but I received an email from Martinvl via the Wikipedia email function a week ago complaining about WCM accusing him of sockpuppetry, and making some fairly unpleasant allusions in relation to this. I ignored it. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Nick-D thanks for letting me know, I appreciate that. I'd welcome you reviewing the SPI I filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Martinvl, as you can see a number of editors have concluded the same based on behavioural evidence. I'm aware of a number of allegations that Martin has been raising against me, its deeply unpleasant and its just one of those things that cumulatively led to me taking a wikibreak. Given Martin has made an unblock request, I believe it may well be pertinent for you to comment in the unblock discussion (User talk:Martinvl#Unblock request). People were leaning to unblock with restrictions, I may have just changed my mind. WCMemail 11:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- And I received another email along the same lines for my trouble of posting the above (Martin, if you had simply stated concerns about WCM's conduct I'd have paid attention, but I binned the emails and will do the same to any future emails from you given the allusions you make about him). Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I give up
Martin's "frivolous" crack has finally convinced me that he's going to keep pouring gasoline on the fire. I'm done. Apologies for the bother. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- No worries, I appreciate the fact you tried as did I, whatever Martin may choose to think the intention was never to see him blocked. WCMemail 13:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 02:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Many thanks, WCMemail 09:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
DangerousPanda arbitation request opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration and have not been listed as a party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 3 December 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery
The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Operation Chengiz Khan
I think you have missed last few edits made on Operation Chengiz Khan, I don't see any consensus for these edits but I wanted to know what you think about them as you have carefully reviewed them before too. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CV, December 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
A good 2015 to you and yours!
- Hope it's going well with you WCM. Have a gud, positive and productive one! Cheers from Irondome (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Operation Chengiz Khan
I had posted a message here on 18 December[3], it got archived and you have just got back. So what you think about these edits? Most of it seems to be unsourced since 2012. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Its unreliably sourced, all of those sources are self-published. TBH I have given up trying to keep that article in shape, it really isn't worth the grief. All that will happen is a bunch of admins at ANI will decide its a "content dispute" between two parties, won't listen and you end up with a black mark that will be forever brought up to show you're a "disruptive editor". Sorry I've had my fill of trying to deal with POV warriors who aren't here to improve the encyclopedia. WCMemail 12:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for this clarification. I have restored the last stable version. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Citation needed tag removed from British Overseas Territories article
Hi Wee Curry Monster, you just undid a change of mine and this was in the message: "(Undid revision 641081203 by Ariel Pontes (talk) rv lede is not usually cited)". Can you explain me a bit what this means? Sorry if in trying to contribute I end up being counterproductive. I'm not very experienced with Wikipedia editing and I'm often puzzled when my changes are rejected. Cheers, Ariel Pontes (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Precious
Falkland Islands
Thank you for quality articles such as Falkland Islands and Antonina Roxa, done in collaboration amd from the sandpit, for fighting nationalism, for welcoming and warning new users, for wishing well and moving on, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
Munro IP edit
Hello. I think you may have misunderstood an edit you reverted. The IP only removed the outdated data and left in the updated information, which was already there. No one has to provide a source to do that, do they? We don't want statements that give two "as of" dates. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 19:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I found the original update here. The source for the original statement was already there. For now, I am going to delete "(15 rounds as of 2012)" from the current revision as unsourced. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 20:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ah ok, my apologies and thanks for fixing my mistake. WCMemail 20:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Gibraltar
What did you mean by the edit summary here? --John (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Already replied, its listed because the UK listed Gibraltar as a colony in 1947 and no other reason. The UN didn't target it as a colony to be decolonised, so unlike territories such as Tibet for example it was never listed. WCMemail 22:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Ok. You seem to be making a lot of reverts there. I followed the diffs and read the talk, so I know what's going on. However right you think you are, could you please think twice before reverting good faith edits, which these seemed to be? --John (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean? I reverted Drmies, who reverted a bot then thanked me for my explanation for reverting them and just short of 24 hrs later I reverted another editor with a friendly message. Is that a lot? I had no intention of further reverts and requested parties use a talk page. If BMK thinks I have a problem with him I can't really deal with his perception but had no intention of reverting again and intended on using the talk page. I don't consider BMK's edit in bad faith for the record. As regards the other editor, my only comment is that I don't believe their edit improved the lede or the article. WCMemail 23:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- That's totally fine; all I am saying is that you should discuss it in talk if it needs to be discussed as the number of reverts overall in the last 24 hours would suggest. --John (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- OK fair enough, appreciate the heads up. TBH I wasn't aware of a serious problem, guess I'm out of touch. WCMemail 23:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Ah OK after reviewing the article history I may have reverted once more than I realised. @John: Genuine mistake on my part, sorry, apologies for my error of judgement. WCMemail 23:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- That's totally fine; all I am saying is that you should discuss it in talk if it needs to be discussed as the number of reverts overall in the last 24 hours would suggest. --John (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean? I reverted Drmies, who reverted a bot then thanked me for my explanation for reverting them and just short of 24 hrs later I reverted another editor with a friendly message. Is that a lot? I had no intention of further reverts and requested parties use a talk page. If BMK thinks I have a problem with him I can't really deal with his perception but had no intention of reverting again and intended on using the talk page. I don't consider BMK's edit in bad faith for the record. As regards the other editor, my only comment is that I don't believe their edit improved the lede or the article. WCMemail 23:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Ok. You seem to be making a lot of reverts there. I followed the diffs and read the talk, so I know what's going on. However right you think you are, could you please think twice before reverting good faith edits, which these seemed to be? --John (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
BOTCs
Hi, could you please check diff and diff. Thanks.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- You're correct he is wrong. Regards, WCMemail 15:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. He reverted both of your edits immediately though diff and diff.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks
I would have left a barnstar but I see you don't like them. I appreciated your intervention on History of the Falkland Islands. Thanks, BedsBookworm (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
IP user
Hi, the well known IP user who tormented us with peculiar views on how the EU law functions vis-a-vis overseas territories is now back at it, this time he is entangled in rules regarding citizenship, Schengen and passports - Talk:Passports_of_the_European_Union#Article_should_be_renamed, [4], [5]. And he is more stubborn than ever. Ugh.--Twofortnights (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I would like proof
that they are out of service.Phd8511 (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- You know something, Google is your friend - [6] National Audit Office report do you? They were withdrawn in 2007. Which doesn't change the fact that weapons for the use of dismounts, stored inside the vehicle aren't a secondary weapon. I would also suggest you do a little more research as this is the second time that I'm aware of that you've introduced incorrect material as the result of sloppy research. WCMemail 10:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)