User talk:Kahastok/Archive 9
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This is anarchive of past discussions withUser:Kahastok.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 thecurrent talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Hey mate. I finally got that RfC done. This is the last one, I swear! It's atTalk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria. Thanks,Nightw13:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if you could comment on the accuracy ofthis comment. In my heart of hearts, I don't think that a consensus on the list's future is going to be reached without going to a wider RfC. But if we can first show that (despite at times heated arguments) we have come as close to agreement as we were ever likely to, we will at least be laying the groundwork for arelatively good-natured RfC, and hopefully a structure on which we can all agree and which will be likely to produce a stable outcome. I have posted an identical talk page message to the two other editors I mentioned in that diff. Regards, —WFC—15:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page,join the project or sign uphere. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go tothis page.EdwardsBot (talk)18:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The last time this discussion took place, you made the question of whether there were any diplomatic sources describing this state - verbatim - as an independent state (that's how I understood the question, at least). There are indeed:[1][2]. I did not respond on that talk page, however, because I do not want the decision on their status to depend on circumstantial evidence. It must be clear how an entity which is "associated" may qualify as a sovereign state, and what are the differences vis a vis other cases, i.e. Puerto Rico.Ladril (talk)22:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I have made an uninvolved editors comment at the currentWikiquette discussion involving the articleRe-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands --Senra (Talk)10:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page,join the project or sign uphere. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go tothis page.EdwardsBot (talk)02:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
...for fixing my screwup.Wee Curry Monstertalk19:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page,join the project or sign uphere. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name fromthis page.EdwardsBot (talk)08:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Pfainuk, I just wanted to say thanks for your lucid and consistently rational participation in the discussion about Cook Island and Niue on the List of Sovereign States talk page. I was away for a few days, but was pleased to see when I returned that you had said everything I would have wanted to say, and said it well. Keep up the good work.Evzob (talk)01:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry editing while annoyed is probably not a good idea, the cheek accusing me of "filibustering" when its his favourite plot. Didn't mean to lose the IP contribution so that was a good catch.Wee Curry Monstertalk20:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,
I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."
Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)
Wee Curry Monstertalkis wishing you aMerry Christmas.
This greeting (and season) promotesWikiLove.
Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Dear Pfainuk, I wish you Merry Christmass, and good health and every success in the New Year! Best,Apcbg (talk)08:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by theMilitary history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, pleasejoin the project or signhere.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name fromthis page.Ian Rose (talk) andEd [talk][majestic titan]21:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do sohere. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of thecoordinators,Nick-D (talk) andEd [talk][majestic titan]00:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)You were sent this message because you are a listed as amember of theMilitary history WikiProject.
|
The Bugle is published by theMilitary history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, pleasejoin the project or sign uphere.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name fromthis page. Your editors,Ian Rose (talk) andEd [talk][majestic titan]00:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
[5] regardingAntonio Rivero. Hard core Argentine nationalists have constructed some elaborate myths around this character, these are debunked by Argentine historians - there is a link to Destefani in the article. I have one IP editor persistently changing the article to remove historical facts, including Destefani's rebuttal and inserting the myth instead. I'm a bit loath to take it ANI as the cursory glance problems usually get there it will be dismissed as a content dispute. A request for page protection has just been declined.Wee Curry Monstertalk10:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by theMilitary history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, pleasejoin the project or sign uphere.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name fromthis page. Your editors,Ian Rose (talk) andEd [talk][majestic titan]10:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I have no objection to the removal of that text but if the other edit goes back, then that is a different matter. Regards,Wee Curry Monstertalk12:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The entire Legal section ofhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_the_Falklands_War consists of unproven allegations - that was the case before I added my bit. The pre-existing contact that you are leaving intact reads "70 Argentine military officers are currently accused..." and these people are considered innocent until proven guilty. It is therefore hypocritical to delete my content while leaving this content intact.
Everything in my bit is completely factual and heavily sourced. The pre-existing content which you are leaving intact contains the very same language ("crimes against humanity"). I am not adding any emotive language, only language that is objectively descriptive of the allegations ("war crimes" is a legal term which refers to acts such as no quarter and perfidy).
Nowhere in my bit is there any reporting of unproven allegations as fact. I am explicitly pointing out that these are allegations made by multiple British servicemen in books they have written, and that a 1994 UK government inquiry ended in a finding that the UK government did not have enough facts to sustain a prosecution.
If you disagree with the style of writing and wish to make it clearer that these are allegations (though I cannot see how this would not already be perfectly clear), then the proper remedy is to revise the language, not to delete the entire section.— Precedingunsigned comment added by66.176.189.230 (talk)14:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the existing text in the Legal section. Allegations of war crimes are in fact legitimately part of the aftermath of the Falklands conflict. Such allegations are in no way irrelevant to the topic.— Precedingunsigned comment added by66.176.189.230 (talk)16:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by theMilitary history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, pleasejoin the project or sign uphere.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name fromthis page. Your editors,Ian Rose (talk) andEd [talk][majestic titan]02:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 | The Modest Barnstar | |
| Thanks for your recent contributions!66.87.2.193 (talk)16:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC) |
 Dispute Resolution –Survey Invite Hello Kahastok. 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 clickHERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associatedresearch page.StevenZhangDR goes to Wikimania!11:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
The Bugle is published by theMilitary history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, pleasejoin the project or sign uphere.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name fromthis page. Your editors,Ian Rose (talk) andEd [talk][majestic titan]00:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
United Kingdom Conservative-Liberal coalition government austerity programme
You don't understand the source of the bias. It isschool, notparty. I encourage you read some economics. The utterly useless Labour lot are not Keynesians—don't you remember how all three parties at the election were up for cuts? How, therefore, a Keynesian-slanted article can be attributed as Labour propaganda is not immediately clear to me. I make the effort to put in talking points from the government as well as the diminishing number of supporters for the economic policies; I don't even bother with the self-serving rubbish that emanates from Mr Balls. Besides, don't you remember who was the leading economics advisor to Brown at the Treasury? Only a fool would vote in Balls as Chancellor. That is not to deny, however, that Osborne is making a complete hash of cleaning up the mess, and causing a lot of misery too. Don't forget: the bast bulk of the cuts are still to come, so expect the recovery to continue to tank. Any Keynesian could successfully predict that. If you don't have the time and inclination to read widely on such matters, I advise Martin Wolf's informative stuff in theFinancial Times, and David Blanchflower's stuff, which is similarly informative but also hilarious. By hilarious, I mean utterly scathing. Wolf's pretty funny too. Again, this is not about Labour vs. Tories, and there is nothing to prevent someone being a Keynesian and a Tory. ~Iloveandrea (talk)23:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by theMilitary history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, pleasejoin the project or sign uphere.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name fromthis page. Your editors,Ian Rose (talk) andEd [talk][majestic titan]14:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
InTemplate:Africa topic, doesn't "Western Sahara" refer to the dependency of Morocco? There's another link, "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic," which refers to the part not under Morocco's control.Goustien (talk)22:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I treat you with respect and I expect politeness and respect in return. I find this quite unacceptable:
Please do better in future.Michael Glass (talk)05:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Kahastok, If you don't trust me, so be it. However, I still expect you to comply withWikipedia policy.Your communication here was polite, constructive and helpful. I thank you for it and hope that in future you will strive to make comments more like this one.Michael Glass (talk)10:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry my comment came across that way. Because of Kahastok's comment I was able to make an improvement to the article on metrication in the UK. I wanted to acknowledge this. If criticism comes across as attack and praise is seen as condescending, then communication is indeed fraught with difficulty.Michael Glass (talk)23:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by theMilitary history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, pleasejoin the project or sign uphere.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name fromthis page. Your editors,Ian Rose (talk) andEd [talk][majestic titan]19:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
It looks like theWP:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto SPI has lurched forward, so that removes most of my impetus for trying to do a userland SPI investigation. Given that I didn't provide any raw data your objections are reasonable. The advantage to looking at timestamps, though, is to pick up coarse-grain patterns: does the user edit during their lunch hours? Only after 8p? Continuously throughout the day? (Or, based on looking at my own graph, has the user been suffering from insomnia?) Looking at the plots of the raw data it's really easy to distinguish one user from another, and the KS test allows me to quantify that distinction.
The fact that data can drift from 2300 to 000 hours doesn't matter much given a sufficiently large number of samples: either the user edits around midnight UTC and there will be plenty of data points on either side, or the user doesn't often edit during that time and the p-value is relatively insensitive to a few stray outliers.
Ornaith raised an interesting point that editors currently edit-warring may be checking in and making edits continously. That's something I'll need to control for.
Anyway, I'll ping you if I decide to pursue this further and we can have a proper statistical discussion with graphs at hand.
Best,
GaramondLethe21:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by theMilitary history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, pleasejoin the project or sign uphere.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name fromthis page. Your editors,Ian Rose (talk) andEd [talk][majestic titan]09:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by theMilitary history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, pleasejoin the project or sign uphere.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name fromthis page. Your editors,Ian Rose (talk) andEd [talk][majestic titan]00:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject has started its2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of thecurrent coordinators on their talk page.This message was delivered here because you are amember of the Military history WikiProject. –Military history coordinators (about the project •what coordinators do) 09:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Finally finished it - seeMatthew Brisbane.Wee Curry Monstertalk21:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
| This is anarchive of past discussions withUser:Kahastok.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 thecurrent talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
