User talk:Kahastok/Archive 17

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.

< Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  13 -  14 -  15 -  16 -  17 -  18 -  19 -  ... (up to 100)

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 Hadrian's Wall and Hawkeye7 on the British military Op-ed: Nick-D on diversity and military history

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1992 Paris–Cape Town Rally, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sabha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I vaguely recall you mentioning an old central discussion that took place years ago re Lists/criteria/numbering and what not. Do you happen to have the link to it? There are some issues which would benefit from centralized discussion. Thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you referring to this?

A big issue at that time was a number of editors trying to push England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland into lists that were otherwise of sovereign states. The broad consensus was that:

• Lists based on a single source should use the criteria chosen by the source.
• Lists based on multiple sources should use ISO 3166-1. States with limited recognition should also be included in an appropriate and neutral way.
• Where specific context implies a different rule, then these principles are overridden. (This applies e.g. to international sport lists where teams don't exactly map to ISO 3166-1).

As far as I remember, the discussion did not touch on numbering.

Now, I would not assume that that page is widely watched. At the time it was spammed to every relevant list, but that was in 2008 and many of the editors active now will not have been active then. It's probably not fair to call it a most recent consensus either in the circumstances. But I would argue that it is a sensible rule and that it would be reasonable to have a broad MOS for lists of countries on that basis. Kahastok talk 21:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I have not done this before, as far as I can tell, I am supposed to add that page to this template https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Centralized_discussion and then transclude it to relevant pages affected, is that how it works? Selfstudier (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

If you want to start a centralised discussion, there are instructions at WP:Centralized discussion. That said, I haven't done it myself (as I say, the 2008 discussion was widely notified but not formally listed AFAIK), and there may be standards that I'm not aware of.

Obviously a discussion would not be held at that page. Seems to me that the most logical venue on this point would be WP:WikiProject Countries, though note the existence of WP:Village pump (proposals). Kahastok talk 19:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh. I understood the instructions to mean create a new page only if there wasn't an existing one in the archives. Using that old page with a new Section seemed to me to be the way to go. The problem in general seems to be that people are going beyond that earlier consensus whether by accident or design and being inventive when it come to differentiating between different entities. Still, I suppose I could try to slot it into Wikiproject countries and refer back to the old consensus although reading the project it is not exactly clear how to do that. Village pump is less formal, is that it?Selfstudier (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I think I misunderstood you. Is it that I can revive the old discussion by making a new entry at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries referring to it and then go from there?Selfstudier (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I mean, it's up to you really. Personally I wouldn't try to revive Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries/Lists_of_countries without at least clearing out the current content to an archive, because the current content is largely historical at this point.

And if you do revive it, you need to tell people where it is, and that means particularly people involved with the pages in question. Because it's not a current recognised forum for discussion and you'll have difficulty persuading people to accept as consensus a decision reached at an obscure page that they were completely unaware of.

I personally would not argue that the consensus reached there is an active and current consensus that applies across the board, given that there is no policy or guideline that expresses it. I would argue that it's still a good plan, but that is a different thing.

Pages under WikiProject:Countries is appropriate because all these lists are in the remit of the WikiProject. I'd suspect that the Village Pump is a good place to get general comments on the proposal but may be a bit general for this sort of discussion. If a WikiProject MOS does come out of any new discussion, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries/Lists_of_countries may well be an appropriate place to put it. Kahastok talk 17:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I think I got it now (says he hopefully). I make a new page called something like Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries/Ranking criteria (by which I mean, numbering, bolding, italicization and any other form of differentiation between list entries) and write up the discussion outline (which could include a reference to the old consensus position, which I agree is still applicable for the most part and the discussion is anyway worth reading). After that, it is a question of how to get as many editors into the discussion as possible which is where that "central" thing helps (or at least I think it does, it seems just a way of centrally advertising a discussion at some location.Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Worth adding that perhaps one of the mistakes we made back in 2008 was not using the opportunity to draft a WikiProject-level MOS based on the consensus that was reached. I would suggest if you go down this route, that drafting an MOS for lists of countries at the WikiProject level would help to formalise any consensus that you reach. If you want to do that, draft a proposal in the Wikipedia space under Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries, then open it up to RFC on the talk page, possibly with centralised discussion if you think it appropriate, and notification to interested editors (e.g. at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries).

That way, you can point to the consensus in the future, saving us from discussing the same point from first principles at every page, and it also provides an opportunity for the consensus to be improved later through the talk page. Kahastok talk 19:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like a plan, let me see if I can draft up an outline for the discussion page, not really sure how to do an MOS but that will likely be a ways off, right? One other thing, the List of states with limited recognition... was the original intent in the old consensus that that list be used to pick up the states NOT in ISO and WITHOUT making any judgements about their status, ie, as if they were in ISO? Selfstudier (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Think I misunderstood again, your idea is to start off with a project right out of the gate? That seems like a complex undertaking at this point, I had more in mind a discussion like you had before and then converting it at some point into a project (there might not be enough interest in it to kickstart a project straight away).Selfstudier (talk) 10:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The intent of the previous consensus was that states with limited recognition should be included in a neutral way, that neither accepts nor rejects them as independent sovereign states. That almost certainly means not treating them as though they were on ISO.

But ISO only applies for multi source lists. For single-source lists (such as the GDP lists) you're just copying the source, and you do whatever the source does and ISO is irrelevant.

My thought was that the best way would probably be to draft a proposed style guideline under WP:WikiProject Countries, and then invite comment on that proposal. The guideline will then be accepted in its original form, accepted in modified form, or rejected. That doesn't mean starting a whole new WikiProject, only to start a new page under the existing project. The new page needn't be very long, but should contain the relevant details. Kahastok talk 13:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, let me see if I can draft a style guideline. I am still not entirely clear about the the States with limited recognition, two of those, the perennially troublesome Israel and Palestine are in ISO (I think the latter might not have been back in 2008 but it is now). As for those that are not in ISO, you say that they are to be treated neutrally but if they are to be treated as not in ISO, doesn't that mean they must somehow be distinguished from those that are? Selfstudier (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Re doesn't that mean they must somehow be distinguished from those that are? - yes, it does. How that is to achieved was not discussed, but the aim was that we needed to acknowledge their existence without implying that they are legitimate.

But the entities in question are the likes of Kosovo, Northern Cyprus, Transnistria and so on, i.e. only the ones not already on the ISO list. States with limited recognition that are on the ISO list (like China, Cyprus and South Korea) do not need to be distinguished from states with universal recognition that are on the ISO list. Kahastok talk 13:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I made this page just to start with, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries/Inclusion_and_Ranking_criteria_for_Lists_of_Countries, is that the right idea? Selfstudier (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I mean, it's accurate, but if you want to propose something it should probably do more than just state a consensus that happened 12 years ago. Because a reader is then going to say, well, so what? In this case, you won't be relying on an old consensus, you'll be relying on a new consensus that you will aim to form.

There is a basic style guide for country articles at [[WP:COUNTRIES}] and you might look at something like this if you want to see how WikiProject style guides are normally written. Kahastok talk 19:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I can see why one wasn't done before :) As far as I can tell, even when it is done, it can still be overridden by "local consensus" (ie the same islands of contradictory consensus that exist now). I will give it some thought. Thanks for the guidance. Selfstudier (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2020 (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: Nick-D on 1945

Wikipedia talk:Notability#Self-published source for establishing notability This was not well advertised and you may have missed this. WCM_email 14:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Another different forum? What's that, five now? Kahastok talk 16:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to do requests for comment on this, I have summarised our previous discussions as a preparation for this. Please read, and then comment on my talk page, I will reasonably amend it if you feel it is not a neutral summary. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Read what? I can't see anything new on either Talk:William Dickson (Falklands) or Talk:Antonio Rivero, or any of the noticeboards you've forum shopped this to.

And even if I had, I'm not quite sure why I should feel the need to cooperate in writing an RFC if I don't feel an RFC would be useful in a given situation. I don't know if I feel an RFC would be useful in "this" situation, because you're telling me you're doing an RFC on "this" without telling me what "this" is. Kahastok talk 19:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

different article Falkland Islanders Boynamedsue (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

There hasn't been any discussion there for over a year. An RFC on that article now would be entirely inappropriate. Kahastok talk 11:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The RFC hasn't yet started, I was hoping to get feedback on whether the summary was neutral first. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Could you kindly scratch out your accusation of canvassing, on Falkland Islanders as I have contacted all involved users, including you WCM and 3 others. It would be helpful to establish your good faith in this discussion. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

FYI [1] WCM_email 14:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Very good. Leave the page of the Argentine Antarctica Department and the Isla de los Estados as you wish. Surely in the bubble in which you live a name does not make sense or is not a usual name, but that is not what gives validity to a place. It is not strange seeing that there you call a country "America" and not a continent. JoakoCABJ (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it if you would stop being so unpleasant on the Falkland Islanders discussion page. --Boynamedsue (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we'd all appreciate it, if you would stop with the invective that is creating an unpleasant atmosphere. WCM_email 13:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I have not used any "invective" at all on the Falkland Islanders page, unless we define "invective" as saying things you disagree with. Whereas both you and K have violated WP:CIV on various occasions, including you openly swearing at me. For example K seems to be extremely hostile to the introduction of new sources, which AFAIK is what we are supposed to be doing on wikipedia. Any road, please tone it down.--Boynamedsue (talk) 09:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, it does become tiresome when you continually announce New source over and over again as though you've found something critical, where in fact you have found something that makes not a blind bit of difference.

But yes, the repeated accusations of bad faith and other attacks that you've posted are not in the least bit helpful. Kahastok talk 20:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Did you happen to notice this? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I especially like his plea, "I am confused as I did not think that my clerking editing was in any way contentious". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Interesting that he doesn't give the diff for the claim because the sysop who colappsed it said that it could be uncollapsed once RM discussion is unsuspended (sic). The sysop in question clearly did not say that, as we'd already both told him. Kahastok talk 19:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this anon IP is seriously out of control. I always suspected that they were a Sock, but didn't have the time or interest level to investigate. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I've had the same thought. But my experience with the sorts of sockmasters who would be interested in this point is limited enough that I wouldn't know where to begin in finding out who. And we could just be seeing the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

I am quite interested that we have admins and even arbs who think that, if a talk page gets badgered with spurious logic enough times, that's a good reason to make a change. No doubt if the Chinese work that one out, Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/1989 Tiananmen Square protests (26th nomination) will result in a deletion. Kahastok talk 20:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's been clear in some of the comments about "inconvenience". It's what little children do badgering their mother for a candy bar in the check-out line--misbehave until she finally relents out of frustration, not out of love or logic. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2020 (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 Historical Aircraft Restoration Society

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

[2]

I think it speaks for itself. WCM_email 11:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think it does. Not sure I quite understand this guy's desperation. Kahastok talk 16:54, 17 September 2020 (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 Franklin Roosevelt in World War II and Hog Farm on the Battle of Chancellorsville

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 & Hawkeye7 look at two aspects of 20th Century warfare Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Unknown Soldiers

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Vaguely interesting, don't know if you keep track of this sort of thing. https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-luxembourg-court-rules-on-the-difference-between-states-and-countries-as-international-law-actors/ Selfstudier (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. I must admit it reads to me like the court has decided on its conclusion and then sought to justify it (rather than reaching a conclusion from the law), but I suspect that happens more than one might thing. Kahastok talk 23:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

[3] New article, please have a look and tell me what you think (I didn't write it). WCM_email 00:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the gentleman and I'm not very familiar with the subject matter.

You can tell the writer isn't an English native speaker. There are plenty of places where the English needs tidying up, but that can be done. It probably shouldn't be using the Daily Express (which is listed as "generally unreliable" but not deprecated at WP:RSP), but I don't think there's much there that relies on it.

There's a few obvious places where the words imply something more than they actually mean. We wouldn't normally bother writing out "Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire" or "Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire", for example, where "MBE" and "CBE" will do. And being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize isn't necessarily very meaningful. I note a few inconsistencies with Argentine Military Cemetery, in line with what you wrote at the user's talk page, which can be probably fairly easily resolved.

I am inclined to wonder if WP:BLP1E applies. If so, it might be better if the whole were merged into Argentine Military Cemetery or converted into an article on the process by which the soldiers' remains were documented, buried and identified. I'd want to do a more thorough survey of the references available before arguing the point, though. Kahastok talk 18:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (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 looks at the war in Ukraine

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

That is the second time in a few days that this editor has been given a 3RR warning, an edit war warning, multiple wp:disruptive warnings. See history of his talk page, [I think I am safe in assuming that it is a he] he just deletes the warnings and carry on regardless. I opened a WP:BRD discussion at talk:Gibraltar but he ignored the invitation to participate. I tend to regard WP:ANI as last resort but I don't know where else we can go from here as five different editors reverting still doesn't seem to get through to him that he is wasting his time repeatedly posting the same counterfactual nonsense. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2021 (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 Australian artillery in World War I Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on no-win scenarios

[4]

Can I request a sanity check, does this not remind you of our old "friend" Alex79818? WCM_email 18:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Last night I thought, not sure, see how he responds. Today, thinking he looks a bit more like it. The lengthy essays are familiar. He's failing to AGF, though it's not quite as extreme as Alex, who rarely bothered to even try to make a substantive case. I'm not sure I see enough to hang an SPI off yet, but there are some similarities.

This account's first edits were 31 December 2010, and Alex was active around that time. Kahastok talk 16:21, 24 January 2021 (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: Works on the Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Perryville and US 1st Infantry Division

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: Works on the Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Perryville and US 1st Infantry Division

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.