User talk:Kahastok/Archive 10

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 13:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Just letting you know I've requested assistance at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute. Sorry I couldn't find the official template. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see its automatic. Never mind then. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. CarrieVS (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

We're waiting on your response to Cabe's request for everyone to summarise their stance before we can go any further. CarrieVS (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since World War II

I opened a new section regarding your recent deletion of information to talk page of the article. I'll await your comments. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at refugees during the Battle of France Interview: Editors discuss writing articles about the former Yugoslavia Op-ed: Prioryman on German V-weapon sites and the historian's responsibility

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel 66 and Hawkeye7 look at aspects of the Pacific War Op-ed: ErrantX considers the rabbit hole of research

Fed up with a dialogue of the deaf, I've gone back to my roots. Good old content creation, remember that? [1] A work in progress, which I'd welcome your comments on. I can't find much in the way of information. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks good to me - plenty good enough for DYK. But I have a few thoughts:

I'd be a touch concerned that this identifies the wrong target for notability. I think it's worth considering, given that we don't have much to talk about regarding much of the rest of his life, whether it is Mestevier who is notable, or the mutiny that killed him. You avoid making it into a coatrack of Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833), which is good.

On specifics, I think I'd start Esteban Mestivier was an Argentine military commander [or whatever] who is best known... - we don't normally start article with Esteban Mestivier is best known. On "the only such appointment to be properly gazetted" - presumably that includes Menéndez in 1982? And is gazetting particularly important in this case? It might be a good idea to be clearer on why this is a significant distinction to draw.

I'm not sure that the point that 1833 "prompted the start of the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute" is as clear-cut as suggested - you could probably make a case for any one of a number of dates from the 1760s to the 1940s, depending on POV and definition. It might be better to emphasise that the islands have been under British control pretty much continuously since then?

Finally, we could probably do with converting the cites to be inline rather than using a list of sources. Kahastok talk 21:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Plan to do inline cites next. I tend to write up a text based on my notes, then go back and do inline cites afterward. I've done some copy editing as suggested. I also have a line on some primary source material from the BA archive to follow up. Thanks for the comments. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to finish off the Mestivier article for me. Bye now. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Dumelow on the French Foreign Legion and Nick-D on New Zealand military history Op-ed: Nick-D on military history tourism

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Works on the RNZAF, World War I in the Baltic, and British battleship construction Op-ed: Anchors Aweigh for the Majestic Titans

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Australia's frontier wars Interview: What Wikimedia chapters can offer military history editors

[2] Check the reference that is claimed not to mention the Falkland Islands. 192.35.35.40 (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh my gosh Curry Monster,[3][4] what are you doing?? Why don't you just use your account?

What I'm "claiming" is that the rank number is completely made up, and mistakenly calculated. Am I wrong? If so, why? --Langus (t) 20:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

BTW, by "report" I meant this one. --Langus (t) 20:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Your claim is wrong. The rank number is not "completely made up". It comes directly from the source used for the data. There is no OR here.

Your point that the number is mistakenly calculated (you say, in your edit summary "0.933 would leave the islands in 4th place, between US and the Netherlands") is also itself mistaken: this calculation was based on the 2007 report. Starting in 2010, the calculation of Human Development Index changed resulting in lower numbers across the board. The number in the report is based on the old calculation.

So, my conclusion is that the justification for removal is mistaken.

Now, that's not to say we can't question it. I wonder, for example, whether we ought to be providing a number (44) that is generated from a completely different source from the numbers found on the other articles, on a different basis. As a result, it appears to contradict the numbers found elsewhere (notably Latvia, also at number 44). The lack of a date is also likely to lead to confusion as Langus demonstrates. The number isn't OR, but I am inclined to agree that it probably isn't appropriate. Kahastok talk 20:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Surely, thats (A) a matter for discussion regarding the template and (B) an argument for updating when new figures are released. Its not an argument for removing sourced material added in good faith following the template guidelines. 192.35.35.40 (talk) 11:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It is just a matter of framing it correctly, if it is statistics. It is easy to slant a statistical ranking if you aren't careful, to try and tell a story with the results. In this case, the stat is just a ranking number - no attempt to say why or otherwise extrapolate from it, so it seems fine to me. There is also no obligation on users to sign in - though they are obviously still subject to revert limits and topic bans. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thing is, where does the ranking number come from? In this case, I'm concerned that the ranking is not based on what our readers would naturally expect it to be. I was, for example, surprised to find the European Union to be one of the 43 entities above the Falklands in that list. My feeling is that the people discussing the template will say that, if in doubt, the ranking should be based on the official HDI list published by the UN, and if a place isn't on that list (and the Falklands isn't) then it doesn't get a ranking. I don't mind being proved wrong on that, but that's my feeling. As to sourced material added in good faith? I have no doubt that it was added in good faith (I don't know who added it), and I accept that it is sourced. But I'm neither of those facts override my concerns to my mind. YMMV of course. Kahastok talk 18:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I am not allowed to comment, I can only bring matters to your attention when I see them. 192.35.35.40 (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I will take a look with a critical eye, but not tonight. I want to give his changes the attention that they deserve and I don't think I'll get the time tonight. Kahastok talk 22:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok, Wee, I can't access the Cawkell source to add the other perspective on the footnote in the "demographics" section (see my talk page for what I mean). It's probably available in my library (haven't checked yet), but I would appreciate it if you could provide me with the quotes & page numbers to add a good analysis on it. Best regards.

Oh, and also please take a quick look at the proposal for topic ban exemptions in my talk page.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for improving articles. Attacking the motives of other editors is not o.k. Please refactor your remarks at the Falkland Island talk page. Jonathunder (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

And yet you have no problem with Martin's posts? Kahastok talk 21:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the death of Osama bin Laden Op-ed: Sturmvogel_66 presents his secrets of prolific contribution

Has there been a RFC on this? If so can you send me a link. Mtpaley (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kahastok is disrupting a GA attempt) Martinvl (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The page WP:FALKLANDSUNITS has not yet been formally adopted as an offical guideline. I have created a proposal to regularise the position. Please feel free to comment Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group/Units#Proposal for acceptance as a formal guideline. If the proposal is accepted, then the page will indeed be part of Wikipedia policy, otherwise it will be tagged a "failed proposal". Either way the uncertainty that has dogged this page for the last three years will be resolved. This message is being sent to every editor of good standing who has contributed here or here. Martinvl (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at WP:FALKLANDSUNITS, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs)

Removing a banner that is highly misleading to users is not blanking. This is more gaming. Kahastok talk 07:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to say although I would still support my original metric then imperial stance I can also see that this thing will keep going round in circles hence my compromise suggest to use UNITS. Thanks for your comments I dont think we are that far away but please forgive some of my ignorance on the players in the game and the history of the dispute. MilborneOne (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group/Units, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group/Units and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group/Units during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jtrainor (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] 17:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Topic Ban Removal Request". Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the American Civil War

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Esperanto may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ''bo'''y''','' and ''c'' has a ''ts'' sound, as in ''hi'''ts''''' or the ''zz'' in ''pi'''zz'''a''.> The accented letters are a bit like ''h''-digraphs in English: ''Ĉ'' is pronounced like English ''
• Pli detale traktante la temon, konsiderante la historion kaj la nunan staton de Esperanto, a.) ĝi estas grandmezure normigita, b.) amplekse sociiĝinta, c.) ne-etna viva lingvo, kiu en sekundara lingva komunumo plenumas ĉiujn eblajn lingvajn funkciojn,

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Kahastok. A reply to your request at the Map workshop has been made. You may view your reply here.
If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}

Begoon ^talk 06:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC).

You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Map reply}} template.

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks Austro-Hungarian battleships of World War I Op-ed: Advice on reviewing Featured and A-Class articles

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board#England, UK or just England? on a topic you have recently discussed elsewhere. Please have your say if you wish. Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2013 (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.