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.
I'd be grateful if you could comment on the accuracy of this 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 a relatively 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)
PS: by "structure" I was referring to the structure of the RfC. —WFC— 15:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Re: Cook Islands
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)
Sorry, just remembered that this was here.
My concern is essentially that all entries must meet the inclusion criteria. Right now that means we need evidence of either:
A declaration of independence plus control of populated territory.
Formal diplomatic recognition from any other sovereign state (which I take to require a chain back to a state that meets the first criterion).
In this case, the sources clearly state that Japan and the Netherlands have formally diplomatically recognised the Cook Islands as a sovereign state.
As a rule I would be cautious of claims of diplomatic recognition made by states with limited recognition, since in the general case they may well be exaggerating or misrepresenting a situation to argue their position in a dispute. I don't see this as a significant risk here, though I feel that Japanese/Dutch sources would still be helpful. I did also find this source for Japanese recognition.
I am willing to accept, based on these sources, that the Cook Islands meet the inclusion criteria and thus should go into the article. Pfainuktalk 17:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
This source is an statement by the Japanese government [3], another which supports the argument is [4]. The point I'm making, however, is that besides these diplomatic statements, it's more useful to explain to encyclopedia readers how, from an international law pespective, an entity that is formally "associated" with another can be considered a separate subject of international law. Many editors have a difficult time understanding this, which makes it difficult to establish a consensus on the issue. Ladril (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
No worries. I haven't been following the discussion closely, but I think I might make a comment to see if it helps. Pfainuktalk 18:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clear arguments (Re: CI and Niue on countries list)
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)
Thanks :) Pfainuktalk 18:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
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 Monstertalk 20:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
"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."
[5] regarding Antonio 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 Monstertalk 10:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Will keep an eye on it. Thanks, Pfainuktalk 22:55, 10 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 Monstertalk 12:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I figured you probably wouldn't mind given the article history. And since the other edit was distinctly biased, I would also have a problem with it staying in there alone. But even if it can all be made neutral, I feel that the whole thing strays well beyond the reasonable bounds of "Aftermath of the Falklands War", which should be dealing with the social and political change that resulted from the war. Pfainuktalk 12:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree 100%, it doesn't belong there. What I also object to is presenting unfounded allegation for which no evidence exists as fact. Wee Curry Monstertalk 12:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
IP is edit warring it back into the article. For infor -
Hello, Kahastok. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
The entire Legal section of http://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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.189.230 (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
No, when the point is as irrelevant to the topic as this one is, the proper remedy is to delete it outright. If you have a problem with the existing text, you're welcome to bring it up. Pfainuktalk 14:45, 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.189.230 (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.2.193 (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution survey
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 click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. StevenZhangDR goes to Wikimania! 11:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
United Kingdom Conservative-Liberal coalition government austerity programme You don't understand the source of the bias. It is school, not party. 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 the Financial 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)
I didn't call it Labour propaganda, though it certainly read like it to me in a lot of places. And in commenting I was and remain very conscious of the election that took place on Thursday, the fact that it Osborne appeared to be specifically targeted. It doesn't matter where the bias comes from. These articles are not allowed to have a Keynesian bias any more than they're allowed to have a Labour bias. They have to be neutral. An 100kB article on a government policy that doesn't even mention the government's arguments is not neutral and that's not allowed. Kahastoktalk 08:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
In Template: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)
Western Sahara is the entire territory - essentially all of the old Spanish Sahara - both Polisario- and Moroccan-controlled. Both sides claim all of Western Sahara. Morocco that the region is an integral part of Morocco (as the Southern Provinces), and Polisario that the region is all the independent SADR. Kahastoktalk 22:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Please be polite.
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)
You've abused my trust far too many times for you to have any reasonable expectation that I will let you abuse it again. If you don't like that, you should have acted differently when you had the chance. And if you consider your side of our interactions to be a case of you treating me with respect then it is difficult to see what you wouldn't consider such. Kahastoktalk 19:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Kahastok, If you don't trust me, so be it. However, I still expect you to comply with Wikipedia 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)
It looks like the WP: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.
Sounds interesting at any rate, though I think it sounds to me like it needs a bit more experience with common patterns of edits, to know how likely given patterns are. Anecdotally, you would think that there might be many editors who happen to edit after school or work who'll all have similar patterns - so I was a bit surprised at how different some of the numbers were on your list on Ornaith's talk. In principle I'd suggest that day of the week would be useful to add - but you're limited in most SPI cases by lack of data.
It might well be worth going through a few SPI cases and see how things stack up, see how well the numbers you generate correlate with results from behavioural and checkuser results.
(Of course, there are also some SPIs where technical data doesn't help because the individual is in a different country - and is probably at a different job, doing different things in their days and so on - but checkuser doesn't help in those cases either). Kahastoktalk 19:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 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 the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:19, 10 September 2012 (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.
