User talk:Wee Curry Monster

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Wee Curry Monster!

File:The Times - Argentine Capture of the Falkland Islands 1820.jpg[edit]

Since the text was apart, why not upload a new version with text alone? I take your actions as bad faith, given the content of the document. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Err because it was faked, your presumption of bad faith is your own problem. The simpler solution is don't upload fakes. WCMemail 12:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
You said that the original was just the text, why not just upload the original text? --Gastón Cuello (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Uploading an image would violate the terms and conditions I signed up to when I subscribed to the Times Digital Archive. Commons is a depository of images not text and I've already uploaded the original text to wikisource. Now do me a favour and take your accusations elsewhere.
Oh and btw I note on es.wikipedia and en.wikipedia you're still speculating about the flag in the plates based in Conrad Martens sketches. I posted you a link to the original painting which clearly shows a Royal Navy Ensign. Someone interested in neutrality would have done something about that. WCMemail 13:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I found the original page. For lithography I got a source. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
And surprise, surprise it confirms that as I pointed out your image was a fake! Do you have something to say?
What source states that is an Argentine flag? Really, you have the original but you'd prefer to continue a stupid lie as its "sourced". WCMemail 13:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You have a (new) report in AN/U[edit]

Here --Discasto talk | contr. | analysis 17:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked[edit]

Natuur12 (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The complaint was actually deliberately misleading [1], whilst I may have posted something whilst irritated by a comment someone made, I'd already thought better of it and withdrew it immediately. Further, removing talk page messages simply means I've read them, I've had a notice on my wikipedia page for years to that effect If I've deleted your message, basically that means I've read it and nothing else. I do tend to delete what I regard as niff naff and trivia. The OP is well aware of this having been posting messages to me since 2008. [2]. Had I been asked I had no intention of doing any reverts again and had pretty much decided to walk away for a few days to let things cool down. @Kahastok:,@Natuur12: WCMemail 18:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Unblock request granted

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request.

Request reason: "The complaint leading to this block was actually misleading. [3] I posted something whilst irritated, thought better of it and removed it as uncivil. The complainant did not mention that but made it seem as if I'd let it stand. I've also had a long standing message on my user page that I tend to simply delete messages after reading. I also have a long standing request that Discasto does not post on my user page, [4]. I had no intention of doing further reverts, I was still finding my feet on here and there are some striking cultural differences eg the lack of a NPOV. Further as I note above had pretty much decided to walk away and let matters cool down. If unblocked I will endeavour to avoid repeat of the behaviour that lead to it but to be honest you're going to have to help me out there and give me a clue as to what exactly you have a problem with. WCMemail 19:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)"
Unblock reason: "The discussion at the talk page convinced me that the block is now officially moot Natuur12 (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)"

This template should be archived normally.

(Block log)
(Change local status for a global block)

Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | हिन्दी | Magyar | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Português | Русский | 中文(简体)‎ | +/−

The problem is edit warring, uncivil behaviour, using ad hominem and brinning the en-wiki to Commons. You know that edit warring is a blockable offence, you know that being highly uncivil is blockable and yet you did it. When you disagree over which version is the NPOV one just fork the file and use the other version instead and don't bother about what other wiki's than your homewiki do. Trust me, I know enough about Discasto not to get fooled by him but some of the things you did where harming the project and it's editors. If Discasto continues being uncivil and importing en-wiki conflicts he'll be blocked as well. I hope my last post clarifies some stuff. Natuur12 (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes but sometimes people are also human and do things they wouldn't normally do when they're being pushed around. You're right I shouldn't have risen to the bait, unlike Discasto I have no interest in continuing conflict here. I would also hope the fact I withdrew that comment you saw as ad hominem without being warned would have some bearing. I'd also stopped reverting and walked away. I'd stepped back. I've also given an undertaking not to repeat any of that. @Natuur12: Would you consider my unblock request in that light. WCMemail 19:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes I will. Natuur12 (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. WCMemail 22:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • WCM, above, in your comment, you repeated incivility. There was no need to add the words "unlike Discasto." I recommend that you really consider, deeply, what might be a habit of incivility, of continuing conflict by reacting to it. It is a habit that will sooner or later demolish your work on the wikis. If you have any questions, I'm open to supporting you. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't intentional but yes I don't react well to being poked. I've struck it out. Now I'm tired and off to bed. WCMemail 02:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Enjoy the rest! --Abd (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • [5] Watch out for that. The removal I don't consider unreasonable, but for you to remove Favalli's comment, given the history, might be inflammatory. I hope it doesn't come to that. If you want to do something like that in the future, ask someone more neutral to do it. I'd probably have done it. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Well the obvious question - why didn't you do it in the first place? WCMemail 20:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Because that user was obviously confused and your edit I first removed (with my response) was taking it more toward pure useless conflict. I did ask him to modify his behavior. It seems he is trying to understand. It was a question of degree. WCM, be careful, you are on thin ice. You were already blocked once for incivility (among other reasons). Subsequent blocks get easier. I've warned two other users involved, but I have no idea what the effect will be. Think before you edit. Will this help anything? You are correct, there was a level of incivility there, though I'd prefer to call it confusion. I warned him.[6]. I also warned the other user. Please Assume good faith. It can make a difference. --Abd (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
So they were confused when they made comments suggesting ulterior motives? Really? WCMemail 22:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Let me be blunt, there is much material here by numerous editors on talk pages that A) demonstrates a complete lack of AGF B) is uncivil and C) nothing has been actioned. The only person acted upon is the focus of that activity. That is sanctioned bullying and a hostile editing environment. I wouldn't care but the very next section on one of the links you reference as a warning is a perfect example of the behaviour I'm complaining about. WCMemail 22:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
They are talking with each other, on their talk pages. Let them talk. Don't even look at it if it upsets you, that was mild as these things go. WCM, you have missed something about AGF. AGF used to be a policy, I understand, but was demoted to a guideline because it attempts were made to enforce it, which gets ridiculous, it would be thought control. Rather, AGF is advice, basically, a piece of how to keep yourself out of trouble. Instead of attributing some problem behavior to "malice," I attributed it to "confusion." Even that might be possibly not the best. After all, some people think that being confused is Bad. We are supposed to always be clear and unconfused. Right?
See [7]. In fact, in my view, Wikipedia dispute resolution process often became very weak, tending to focus on identifying who is bad and wrong and blocking that person if they protest or insist. I know and have demonstrated, many times, a better way. For example, I found two fighting with each other, revert warring, one was a professor, an expert in the field of the article, and the other was Randy from Boise with an opinion. I intervened, and the result was that they began cooperating. If you think about it, it could be perfect: someone who really understands the topic and someone who doesn't, and who wants to see sources, etc.
They were headed for blocks, both of them. I pointed out that they could help each other. It worked.
WCM, I don't want to see you blocked. I want to see you successful. On a wiki, that requires being able to work with people with whom you disagree, sometimes even strongly. And some of those people will be, ah, less than perfect.
Am I wasting my time here, or is any of this making sense? --Abd (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


Redacted, and revisions deleted, as requested. If needed, I can ask an OS to make it invisible to admins as well. Revent (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Revent: Thank you, if you ask an OS I would appreciate it. Regards, WCMemail 20:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I dropped them a line, privately. Apparently none is around atm, but I'll make sure it gets taken care of. Revent (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Yup. odder (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. WCMemail 23:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)