User talk:Kahastok/Archive 13

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 12

Archive 13

Archive 14 >

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: Hawkeye7 on the German retreat from France in 1944 Op-ed: TomStar81 on empires 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: Nick-D on Jefferson Davis; Hawkeye7 on Australia's war in Vietnam Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses British World War I conscription 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 nuclear weapons in Britain and Nick-D on Australia's war in the Pacific Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Kamurun Campaign of 1914–16 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 discusses a Panzer general and a "mercenary mum" Op-ed: TomStar81 on the terrible battles of 1916 Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello, I have seen you have removed my recent contribution to the subject. I previously added it to the Falkland Islands article and it was removed as it was apparently not deemed to be in the right place and was considered misreported. I then added it in the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, with some balancing information and you removed it. However, my contribution was referencing original (UN) sources, in addition to the news media reporting the information. If you felt that the information was still misrepresented I understand that the normal practice on Wikipedia is to add balancing information rather than removing it outright. So I would ask you to do just that. I will repost my contribution, as I feel it is the right place and it is a useful piece of information for any user visiting that page, and I would encourage you to counterbalance that information if you personally feel it is not accurate.

Thank you. ESND (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

My reply to this is best placed on Talk:Falkland Islands Sovereignty Dispute. I see you've found it, so I'll assume we'll continue there. Thanks, Kahastok talk 20:31, 30 March 2016 (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 Australian spies, Nick-D on the German Army Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1916 Easter Rising 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 Australian spies (part two) Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of Jutland Timeline: Events of 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 on the Australian Imperial Force Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi Kahastok. I understand Gibraltar is part of the British Empire and personally have no issue with that. The problem is that you are denying that Llanitos speak their own language as a vernacular, which is Llanito, and have done so for centuries, something akin to denying Hong Kong citizens spoke Cantonese during the British period. I can only assume you have never been there otherwise you would not push such an opinion. I go there often and can assure you most people over 40 speak quite poor English. I think it is unfair you attempt to deny any part of the United Kingdom its unique culture on the basis of fear of territorial claims by x country. I have to say it smells of hyper-nationalistic (to put it mildly) POV pushing which has no place on wikipedia. Gibraltarians can remain British while conserving their language, heritage and culture, no need to worry.Asilah1981 (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it sounds like hyper-nationalistic POV on your part as it appears that you are claiming that the Gibraltarians are all Spanish really and just being difficult over sovereignty for the sake of being difficult.

If you were able to provide a cite to a reliable source, of course, that would be a different matter. But the fact that you have now repeatedly refused to do so does not persuade me not to push back on this. Kahastok talk 12:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok. You are wrong on this, I will simply provide sources. Asilah1981 (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

If you disagree with removal of uncited content, finding sources to demonstrate your point should be the first resort, not the last resort.

And now that you've added sources, you need to do better than that. Pointing at an offline book is fine, but you need to give page numbers and (if requested) quotes. Pointing at a source in another language is fine, but you need to give me - and anyone else who wants to check this - a bit of help in understanding which text in the source is supposed to be backing which statement, including a translation if requested. I have noted on the talk page a section where I believe that the text you have added does not reflect what is in the source. There are still problems here that very much need to be resolved before I will be happy to consider this closed. Kahastok talk 13:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Kahastok I wrongly assumed you don't speak Spanish so I added the original books (in English) rather than the quote in Spanish in another article. I have no also added the article which quotes them. Lipski is from 1987. I have also added a very indepth study of use of Spanish and English among young gibraltarians done in 2000. Again, it is in Spanish.Asilah1981 (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous message, specifically the part that says: "Pointing at a source in another language is fine, but you need to give me - and anyone else who wants to check this - a bit of help in understanding which text in the source is supposed to be backing which statement, including a translation if requested." Kahastok talk 16:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Kahastok You need to write my name if you want me to be aware that you have answered me! You were right about the sentence, I accidentally misrepresented what is says exactly so have removed it. But the general line of the article does go in that direction. Sadly, I think it is not possible to google translate. As I mentioned, for me this is not political but I have been to Gib a dozen times (last time maybe 5 years ago) and I know the place quite well. I personally think the place should stay British, because its what makes it unique. But trust me when I tell you locals are very Andalusian and, at least the older folk really disliked English expats by what I remember, whereas ironically they had no beef with their Spanish neighbours (just the government). I remember many speaking awful English, and others feeling really uptight when speaking it. Its as the sources say, for them its a "political" language and a language of government. Maybe like the Queen's English would be in one of the British colonies in the Caribbean. Its an interesting place, particularly if you know both languages and cultures. Things are probably changing now though, kids now speak English natively - but that is a natural trend pretty much everywhere. Asilah1981 (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion at WP:3RRNB, which you may be able to comment upon. WCM_email 13:10, 25 July 2016 (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 disease control and defence satellites Op-ed: TomStar81 on the rise of air power Timeline: This month in World War I

You need to stop reverting at this article unless you can make a case that your actions meet any of the exemptions described at WP:3RR. Continued reverting jeopardizes your editing privilege. Tiderolls 21:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted twice today - as compared to four times for Asilah I think - but I will avoid reverting again. I think your best option may be to protect the article though as at History of Gibraltar this has been the only way to persuade Asilah to discuss the edits s/he wants. Thanks, Kahastok talk 21:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Different options are being reviewed. Please be patient. Thanks Tiderolls 21:41, 21 August 2016 (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: Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on Nazi terror and covert warfare Op-ed: Hawkeye7 looks at Australians on the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and 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 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (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 recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on the evolution of the tank Timeline: This month in World War I

Just found that DeFacto has been unblocked. Amazing, after all that, I'm gobsmacked. WCM_email 08:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh and check out Talk:Gibraltar, I'm convinced thats Imalbornoz. WCM_email 20:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I was there when he was unblocked. The conditions are quite hard - a topic ban on units, no alternate accounts, 1RR, that sort of thing. As I said on another talk page a month later, the rules are that anyone can change. But DeFacto did make the effort to address the issues that led to the unblock, and he did accept the conditions the community proposed. Kahastok talk 21:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:17, 6 November 2016 (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 two new books on the US military Interview: A chat with our new project coordinators Review essay: Nick-D discusses recent works on the British and Australian Armies in World War I Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

Don't remove my entries just because you dislike Hamilton. It provides historical context of his career and enriches the information given as it does not appear elsewhere in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ar558 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 28 November 2016 (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 America's nuclear capability at the start of the Cold War Review essay: Hawkeye7 on the Manhatten Project suite of articles Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses leadership changes in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi. Regarding your request, to not go OT in an already very "choral" ANI report in which I may only participate further in order to defend myself from some, IMO, "wrong views" of Iñaki on me, yes: racist is a stronger word than campaigner. However, I have to be frank regarding Gib: the drama, walls of talk-page text and time wasted in order to correct the nonsense of the moriscos in history of Gib was silly. Very silly. And the rejection of mentioning (not even in the lead) Minorca in Disputed status of Gibraltar based on specific secondary sources on the topic (one of them already cited) and later the ask for a re-write based on secondary sources was demoralizing. And I am only taking about the two issues I took a glance on and commented on them, I suspect Asilah has met more similar situations regarding Gib. Merry Christmas.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Iñaki has not expressed views on Asqueladd at any length - only that he was WP:CANVASSed by Asilah to the Basque discussion, which is Asilah's fault, not Asqueladd's. He's said a lot about Asilah. This is not the first time you've confused the two.

I'm afraid I have no intention of changing my views on the policy issues here. The fact that Asilah believes himself to be correct does not absolve him of the need to assume good faith, to avoid personal attacks and to stick to our sourcing requirements, including in the matter of due weight.

If Asilah wants discussions to go more easily, then there are things he can do to make them go more easily. Consensus is nigh-on impossible when you have one editor who is continually issuing personal attacks and accusing the others of being "activists" or "campaigners", or similarly accusing them of bad faith. If Asilah wants people to work constructively with him, he needs to work constructively with them. I've tried to work constructively with Asilah, but when he then accuses me of being the devil incarnate or something, because I do not instantly agree to unreasonable demands, it does not make me feel I want or need to do him any favours. Kahastok talk 10:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I have mistaken nobody here, mate. Aside from having indeed referred to me and my edits in every WP:ASDFGHJ available in Wikipedia jargon, Iñaki is actually using a "what the fuck has happened" wrote by me in the user talk page of a third party as serious breach of etiquette/sign of "verbal incontinence" in an ANI report. About the last part, no problem, whatever floats your boat. Best regards--Asqueladd (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not your "mate".

"Whatever floats your boat" is one response. But note that if editors like Asilah are not willing to behave in line with Wikipedia standards, the community is likely to start telling them they aren't welcome. These aren't rules you can ignore when it pleases you or when you think you're right in a content dispute or whatever. Kahastok talk 17:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair then. I find odd you are more rigid than a non-native speaker when dealing with the casual term for adressing a male you do not know his name. Again, your reasoning is so sound I might even be tempted to recycle it at some point in the future (properly attributing it to its author, :) ). Nothing more to add, user. See you next time!--Asqueladd (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

This is an archive of past discussions with User: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 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 19