User talk:Kahastok/Archive 14

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.

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 and Nick-D look at three recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on a curious episode of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

You kindly made me understand some of the criterias for wikipedia articles. Is the article EF English Proficiency Index established and written in conformity with these WP criteria? See my comment on the talk page there. --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I am replying here since you were discussing my personal behavior and it is irrelevant to the RfC. First, no. None of my proposals are non-negotiable. And yes, evidently I oppose you guys rewriting the whole article on the basis of your extremely politicized editing. For crying out loud, you two mainly edit on articles about the Falklands and Gibraltar (two British overseas territories involving a territorial dispute with a Hispanic country) in a way which to an outside observer seems like very aggressive political activism. Don't forget that it was the crazy behavior regarding Conversos and Jews (admittedly more from WCM than you) that drew my attention to this article in the first place! Some other editors may have seen you edit in a more positive and honest way (I assume on stuff which you don't feel so strongly about) but I just haven't. We know what the deal is so lets just stick to the arguments as per policy rather than discussing each other. I'm not going to accuse either of you of anything from now on or question your motives. I just want fair and neutral articles on wikipedia and will focus on discussing content, policy, sources and rational arguments in a polite non-snarky way. I expect the same from you and WCM.Asilah1981 (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

There have only been two editors in the past who have proved unable to edit this page without personal attacks and accusations. I'm afraid you appear to be the third. If you are not willing to edit my talk page without the sorts of personal attacks and accusations contained in the above, please do not edit it at all. Kahastok talk 16:52, 5 February 2017 (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 Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

[1],[2] As I'm under a voluntary 1RR restriction I won't be able to revert again. WCM_email 13:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (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 and Nick-D look at works on two facets of US military power Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Russian Revolution 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: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at air power and nuclear weaponry Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on Australia's part in the advance on the Hindenburg Line 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: Hawkeye7 on Strategic Air Command doctrine Op-ed: Tomstar81 looks at a little-known aspect of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands. Since you had some involvement with the Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.

It seems the proposer was less than thorough with notifying people involved in previous discussions. WCM_email 22:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• Please be more careful when editing talk pages, this edit deleted a comment of mine. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:30, 13 May 2017 (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 looks at the Battle of Kokoda and US defence acquisition in the 1960s Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines 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: Nick-D looks at planning for the unthinkable Op-ed: TomStar81 on Russia's Provisional Government 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: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines and recent Australian Army leadership; Nick-D on South African armour Op-ed: Nick-D talks photography 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: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at two recent releases Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on ANZACs in the Third Ypres Offensive Timeline: This month in World War I

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (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 and Hawkeye7 look at Australian involvement on the Western Front in 1918 and in post-war New Guinea Op-ed: TomStar81 on the October Revolution 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 late 1917 naval warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello, Kahastok. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (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 Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Halifax Explosion of 1917 Timeline: This month in World War I

I think this your comment crosses the line. You put in my mouth something I never said. Among other things, you tell about my "attempts to divine out of thin air". No, I only quoted scholarly RS. That is what they tell, no me. You, on the other hand, failed to produce a single scholarly RS during the entire discussion to support your assertions. My very best wishes (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, so far as I can tell my text was an entirely accurate summation of your argument - an argument that you are still making. If you don't like people pointing out that your arguments are absurd, don't make absurd arguments. Kahastok talk 20:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I never "seriously argued that Iran, Syria, Lebanon all recognise Israel as a legitimate independent state". And so on, and so on. If you think that I said something, you must be able to support your claims with diffs. You simply invented something and incorrectly claimed this to be my opinion. If you do not understand it, this is not my problem. My very best wishes (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

You argued - argue - that there are seven disputed states in the world, and that Israel isn't one of them. The conclusion is obvious and inescapable. If you don't like that, change your argument. Kahastok talk 21:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Please do not do it again. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• I am sorry, but you continue doing the same [3]. I removed it from my section of survey. My very best wishes (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

You are not allowed to remove comments from RFCs solely because you do not like them. You do not have your own section of the survey, neither do I. There has to be a good reason per WP:TPO and in this case there clearly isn't. Kahastok talk 19:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

In the diff above you tell to me: You're proposing to remove these entries that pass the criteria because they don't pass some other subjective criteria of your own. Once again, you blamed me of something I did not do. WP:NPA violations can be actually removed. But OK, I am letting this stay in wrong section of the RfC because you insist. My very best wishes (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

That is not a personal attack. It's an accurate summary of your position. On the previous point I did little more than take your own argument to its logical conclusion. So far as I can tell, what you are demanding in this section is that I not make any argument that demonstrates the flaws in your proposals. Kahastok talk 20:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

No, this is not an accurate summary of my position. And no, this is not a logical conclusion of my argument. You are very welcome to express your opinion, whatever it might be. But you are not welcome to make a mockery of comments by other contributors. My very best wishes (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I find this comment does little to alter my impression of what you want here. If you or anyone else makes a proposal that I believe is flawed, I see no reason why I should feel the need to pretend that it is not. And doing so is not in any way a personal attack. Kahastok talk 20:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Then let me explain. Consider this your comment. It could be mocked or (mis)interpreted in a number of ways. For example, one could say that you came to the project your argument is to support Russia and fight against reliable sources because they are "Western". But I did not tell it. This is something you do, although in a different way, by distorting my comments. My very best wishes (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It is astonishing that an editor with your experience would not be aware of the clear and obvious difference between claiming that an editor is acting in bad faith on one hand, and pointing out the flaws in their arguments on the other. Kahastok talk 21:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, my apology. I fixed it. But does it really make a lot of difference? I am simply giving you an example of misinterpreting a comment by another contributor. My very best wishes (talk)

Hi. I am sorry for interrupting, but if I could, I would like to ask if there is something wrong after your last edit to the article List of sovereign states, because now it looks in that way: "so long as it was not "obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure"[[Category:Articles that may contain original research}}]][Improper synthesis?]". I mean, there is the information about that category right after the text. Rregardless of the fact it looks ugly, it just looks like some kind of a mistake. Thanks in advance. Greetings. Jojnee (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for noticing that, yes it was a mistake. I've sorted it out by doing it in a different way. Kahastok talk 18:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks :) Jojnee (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC) I've read a little bit about that matter and it seems that the statement in the article is, in fact, correct (the synthesis is proper) as the Montevideo Convention article says: "An important part of the convention was a prohibition of using military force to gain sovereignty. According to Article 11 of the Convention, The contracting states definitely establish the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or advantages that have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure", and the Sovereign state article states "According to declarative theory, an entity's statehood is independent of its recognition by other states, as long as the sovereignty was not gained by military force". Doesn't it mean we should remove the "improper synthesis?" tag? :) Best wishes. Jojnee (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Just an FYI, user: My very best wishes, just deleted some of your comments on the List of Sovereign States talk page. Diffs are here [[4]]. Regards XavierGreen (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. They do not have my permission to do this, so it breaks WP:TPO. I have reverted and asked them not to do it again. Kahastok talk 19:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not think what the other user had done in editing your comments was correct, but after joining one of the discussions under a survey reply, I thought it was getting quite long, and was no longer related to the survey response it was a reply to. I tried to move it to the discussion section in a more neutral way (simply moving all the comments in that single reply thread), in accordance with WP:TPO guidelines on sectioning and editing for clarity. If you disagree with this change, please revert it. Seeing your disagreement about having comments moved, I should have asked you beforehand, sorry if you feel this move was undue as well. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion has become longer and more involved, and to my mind it makes a difference that you are not actively trying to get rid of the discussion in question (as MVBW did in his first edit by just deleting the response entirely). On the other hand, part of the point is that my post was a direct response to MVBW's post, and this meaning is lost by moving it. If you were to add a comment in context noting that the point has been moved to the discussion section it would be better I think. Kahastok talk 14:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Because the context is now far less clear and in response to this, I have removed the thread back to its original position. Kahastok talk 15:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (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.