User talk:Kahastok/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions with 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 the current talk page.

Hi, I notice you on the next United Kingdom general election talk page. Bondegezou and I have been discussing the possibility of a prose summary of the major shifts and trends in public opinion over the Parliament (where that can be seen reported in reliable sources) on the article page. I would tend to agree, and have started to draft, but would like others' views before I put too much work into it. Please comment! DrArsenal (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I am writting this letter because I am not very pleased with the fact that Curry Monster undid an important piece of information which I posted in the Falklands Islands Sovereignty Dispute. I added this vital (54 countries recognizing Argentina's claim over the Islands isn't nothing..) piece of information:

On February 22, 2013, 54 African countries recognized the sovereignty of Argentina over the Falklands at the South America-Africa Summit (SAS)
that was held in Equatorial Guinea, these 54 African countries signed the Malabo Declaration, which included Argentina's claim. [1] [2] [3] 

I would like to ask you to take a look at it and to hear your opinion.

Thank you in advance for your help. Amorparamipatria (talk)

Post Scriptum: Here you have a link to the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute&action=history

Hello,

I would start by making you aware of WP:CANVASS. In principle, this message would fall foul of this rule as it is not neutral.

In this case, it makes little difference. I agree that with Wee Curry Monster that not all statements made are automatically relevant or "important", let alone "vital". It has not been established, through secondary sources on the subject as a whole, that this particular statement is relevant to the dispute as a whole. I note that multiple African governments, both before and after the statement in question, have made statements or suggestions that would seem to contradict the statement you desecribe. I would thus endorse his revert. Kahastok talk 22:07, 17 November 2014 (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 Nazi Germany's Eastern Front allies Op-ed: TomStar81 on the origins and legacy of trench warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (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: Hawkeye7 on armoured reconnaissance and German scientists, Nick-D on time travelling historians Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the World War I Christmas truce Timeline: This month in World War I

Happy New Year!

Kahastok,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Thank you very much, and I wish the same to you and to everyone else reading this page. Kahastok talk 11:59, 2 January 2015 (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: Jonas Vinther on Hitler and Cliftonian on the Rhodesia Regiment Interview: 2014 Military History Newcomer Award nominees Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian War Memorial Op-ed: TomStar81 on the birth of strategic bombing Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello Kahastok, I know you added a bit to some of the discussions on this and seemed to support obeying WP:UNITS. So I am being cheeky and asking if you can help me with it in the Brit footballer pieces. I'm asking because Michael Glass is still refusing to allow me to follow WP:UNITS for Brit players and at the same insisting that pieces about non-Brit players follows it!!! He's even going around the articles swapping the PFA (footballers bible ;-) ) reference that uses feet and inches for a link to the Premier League site which only uses meters. Other users then insist the height should be meters like the reference!!! That isn't how WP:UNITS says to do it. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 07:26, 13 February 2015 (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 review: Nick-D on the British Pacific Fleet Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the advent of chemical warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi Kahastok, thank you for your tip. Unfortunately, I've carefully read the document you're mentioned (according to you, WP:Signatures does say that the signature should be at the end of the post, rather than in the middle) and haven't found the slightest instruction about not including postscripts (BTW, Wikipedia:Signatures is not a policy, but a behavioral guideline (and therefore It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply). It's really weird to be so strict with regard to a given policy (in fact, it's simply your own interpretation of a guideline), and, at the same time, trying to get me blocked without being able to mention any single policy that would support such a claim. In fact, your behavior seems to be related to a real policy in THIS wikipedia: the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work (if you don't remember the wording, it's WP:HOUND). Please, focus on your work and I'll do the same. Best regards --Discasto (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I've just noticed that you're in fact [redacted Kahastok talk 19:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)]... everything is much understandable now :-P --Discasto (talk) 07:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Who are you claiming I'm WP:HOUNDing? I don't see any editors in common between your SPI, WP:MOSNUM and Naming (parliamentary procedure), the three pages - other than your talk page - that I've edited in the last week. And the post on your talk page came directly from the SPI. If you think that's it's you, then that is a pretty serious personal attack by you against me and I would urge you to withdraw it.

Your claim that I am "trying to get [you] blocked" is clearly false, and also a personal attack. At no stage since I found out that you had unretired yourself have I tried to get you blocked. I called for you to be restricted to a single account, which in the circumstances I think is only reasonable, and I don't see why you should object to it. Plenty of us manage to work with one account perfectly well. And it's not like you have a right to expect this project to help you disrupt another (by evading your block there).

Re: the rule on signatures, WP:SIGHOW says that they way to sign is by, [a]t the end of your comments simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~.

But beyond that it is common sense. People like to see who wrote what and that's much harder when the signature is in the middle of the post. To the point where there really isn't any point in your signing your posts at all. Why is it not more prominent there? Probably because practically nobody else on Wikipedia does it your way. I asked you to avoid doing it in future, politely and with reasons (not just per policy). I'm not the first to have done so. And you responded with a string of personal attacks and accusations and announced that it was within policy so yah boo sucks to you. Frankly, with that attitude, I wouldn't be too surprised if you were indeffed here before too long, without any help from me. Kahastok talk 19:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

No drama from my side. It's really sad to see two supposedly grown-ups keeping a so clownish hounding and harassment... Sad. --Discasto (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Discasto: if you are either not willing or not able to edit my user talk page without abusing me, please do not edit it at all. Thanks, Kahastok talk 19:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your help on my recent edits. You're an awesome wikipedian. BedsBookworm (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2015 (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 review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian Fleet Air Arm Museum Op-ed: TomStar81 on submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

[1] It does, but it was warranted because it's not only the Argentine government who argues that Argentina has maintained a claim over the Falkland Islands since 1833 but also half (or, I'd venture to say, more than a half) of the academic universe. Of course, the British-POV is is strengthened when you put the argument in the mouth of Argentina instead of academics, but oh well, I tried to be neutral. ----Langus ^TxT 20:40, 19 April 2015 (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 landing at Anzac Cove Op-ed: TomStar81 on the debut of poison gas in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

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 review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 and Simon Harley on the sinking of the Lusitania Timeline: This month in World War I

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 review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the new technology of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

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 review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on sourcing articles about bombing a battleship Op-ed: TomStar81 on the role of nursing in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

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 on the Second Schleswig War Interview: Featured picture participants Op-ed: TomStar81 on Indian nationalism during World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors, coordinator elections have begun Articles: Abbasids to a Yugoslav monitor Book reviews: Economics of warfare, Japan, and light horse Op-ed: We can (not) advance Timeline: This month in World War I

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:20, 25 September 2015 (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 review: Anotherclown and Sturmvogel 66 on war in the air and at sea Review essay: Auntieruth55 on the French Revolutionary Wars Op-ed: TomStar81 on the entry of Bulgaria in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Overseas territories are not countries. French Guiana is not a country. It is part of France, yes. Integral, even. But also Dependent. I see your point that the name of the category "Dependent territories in South America" isn't perfect, but it is the best (and most consistent) way of categorizing this territory that is 1.) on the South American continent, but is 2.) not, itself, a country. Just like the Falklands. Please unrevert. Thank you. giso6150 (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Your argument would surely equally apply to Buenos Aires Province, Acre and East Berbice-Corentyne. After all, none are countries and all are on the South American continent. Why not include them as "dependent territories in South America" too?

French Guiana is to France what Hawaii is to the US. Yes, it's on a different continent - just as Hawaii is not in North America. Yes it's a long way from Paris - just as Hawaii is a long way from Washington. Hawaii does not belong in a category called "Dependent territories in Oceania", and French Guiana doesn't belong in category "Dependent territories in South America".

Don't get me wrong - this is a common and understandable mistake to make - but it is a mistake to consider French Guiana to be a dependent territory. Kahastok talk 22:03, 6 November 2015 (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 review: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of the Bulge Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the collapse of the Serbian Army in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (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.