User talk:Pfainuk/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This 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.

Contents

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Pfainuk! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! --  Netsnipe  ►  13:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

English Independence Party

(article has since been deleted as non-notable Pfainuk talk 17:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC))

Pfainuk, Do you have a problem with how i've edited the English Independence Party article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by R johnson (talk • contribs) 08:31, 2 October, 2006 (UTC)

Right now, yes. I don't think it's worth getting in a major flap over such a small political party, but I think that the current revision is fairly clearly POV - even more so than before with the new word "we". My objections are clearly mentioned on the talk page. I'm putting a POV template at the top, to flag this up, since it seems to be only two of us working on that page. Pfainuk 11:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

(Moved from my user page):

We'll have to compromise won't we? I edited the page with a few sentences of the EIP paragraph from the website which I help write. I may have been blind to the fact that it might be seem as a POV. Onto another note is it fine with you if I add the EIP logo? Just out of interest, are you a member of the EIP?

R Johnson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by R johnson (talk • contribs) 15:28, 2 October, 2006 (UTC)

We will have to - or agree to disagree until another editor comes along and makes some kind of judgement - the party website is I guess a good source for info but the goal is different (to promote, more than to inform). I still believe that the final sentence I mentioned on the talk page is unnecessary and potentially misleading, in that it implicitly associates the EIP with the major parties - parties that do not appear to have a significant amount in common with the EIP. The EIP logo would be perfectly proper and expected.

I am not a member of the EIP and disagree strongly with some of the policies listed, but in this case I'm more interested in keeping this article neutral than trying to score political points. Pfainuk 14:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

.gs

I've posted some thoughts on your revert at talk:.gs. In short, good job! - Thanks, Hoshie 09:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Apollo missions

Why do you keep changing my revision? The least you could do is send a message to the editor explaining your reasons.Salomee gum naan bin ohda 22:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've only reverted once - the other was another editor, and a third appears to agree with us on that editor's talk page. Your source doesn't appear to go anywhere near saying what your edit claims it to, and thus is original research per WP:SYN. Nor does it appear to be reliable per WP:V. I also fail to see the relevance of such information to the page List of Apollo missions. We do have a page dealing with such claims. Since this is controversial material, liable to be challenged, please try to get a proper consensus on the talk page before adding it again. I will be removing it once more. Pfainuk 23:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

NB. I have copied this to the page's talk page. Pfainuk 23:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


I'm afraid I prefer not to give out my e-mail address to people I don't know over Wikipedia. Pfainuk 19:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

well i suppose i can talk about this here, hopefully there aren't many people reading this. i assume you have read the article i referred to as a source. i have verified the 2 men in the article. both of these men are telling the truth, though it is very unbelievable. i would not have edited this article without verifying their story first. verifiability is just as important to me as it is to wikipedia. truth is stranger than fiction. one man's name is (removed by Pfainuk). he lives in (removed by Pfainuk). the other man's name is "ptah", his real name and residence are a mystery.Salomee gum naan bin ohda 02:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


While I'm glad that you consider verifiability to be so important, the spirit of the verifiability policy is that information should be verifiable by all through the sources we give, without their needing to dig up too much. In principle, the full verification should be available through the article - and this is particularly true where the sentiments expressed are likely to be in dispute. If the verification is not pretty airtight, the material will likely be deleted again and again because people (in general) are unlikely to take it on faith that you have successfully verified such contentious information without seeing the verification for themselves. I'm not the only one who's reverted your edit, nor am I the only one who was likely to - and not everyone's as likely to assume good faith to the extent that I am.

For the reasons you've given, you'd presumably prefer not to give such verification, which will make it difficult for that information to be included in the article. But if you do keep adding it without airtight verifiability, it's you that's likely to come off looking worse, not those that revert you.

I have WP:OR issues as well with this source, since they state that the pictures are missing and that the landing was faked - but I would dispute this inference - if pictures are missing, it implies only that pictures are missing, not that the landing was faked. Pfainuk 10:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Newbridge, Oxfordshire

Excellent work - well done! The poor little stub that I started has changed out of all recognition today. BencherliteTalk 13:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Pfainuk talk 13:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Northwest Passage

You accidently left off a closing reference tag. Also the reference given with the sentence about the EU does not cover what is said. Do they really want an "internationally controlled zone" or do they want the same as the US. Also, this sentence "Most maritime nations,[14] consider them to be a "transit passage", an international strait where foreign vessels have right of passage,[15] giving Canada only a few rights to control shipping, and not allowing Canadian law to apply in full.[16]" seems to me to be a bit sympathetic towards Canada. How about something like;

"Most maritime nations,[1] consider them to be an "international strait", where foreign vessels have the right of innocent passage or "transit passage",[2] giving Canada the same rights over the Northwest Passage as with other territorial waters.[3]

Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a bit tired when I made that edit and didn't realise that was the same reference as you mentioned - or else I'd have corrected it as well. Innocent passage and transit passage aren't quite the same thing by my understanding, as innocent passage here could be suspended and would be under full Canadian juristriction, while transit passage could not be suspended and would carry only partial Canadian juristriction (similar to the contiguous zone) - this is why it requires a separate paragraph in UNCLOS. Rereading, my sentence was a bit sympathetic, you're right. I'll copy your text in, and then edit it myself make the distinction clear. I can quite believe the the EU and US positions are identical, and that that sentence is based on a reasonable misunderstanding by the original editor. Pfainuk talk 09:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Pfainuk

(from England, Pfainuk talk 17:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC))

I have replied to your reply on the England talkpage, i woudl very much like to come to some agreement on this matter, cheers. Gazh 11:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You were quick

(from Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, Pfainuk talk 17:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC))

I was just about to edit the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands when I noticed you'd already done it. Cheers mate. Justin A Kuntz 22:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem :-) Pfainuk talk 22:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Troll Poop?

(from Falkland Islands, Pfainuk talk 17:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC))

Not sure what to make of our enthusiatic contributor to the Talk:Falkland Islands page. It did cross my mind he was trolling as he has made no attempt to address the reference to wiki policies put to him. What do you think, troll or over enthusiatic newbie? Justin A Kuntz 14:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

So far, I've been working based on overenthusiastic newbie (if only on WP:BITE and WP:AGF grounds), but I agree it is a bit fishy and he hasn't gone for me quite so much (or maybe I just skipped over that bit because he was ranting).
But I am finding it difficult to believe that he really is a genuine newbie. I don't think WP:NOR is open to his interpretation, and yet he stood by it even when corrected by (apparently) more experienced editors (would I really have referred him there if it meant what he said it did?) I don't think I can accept in good faith his explanation for accusing you of failing to discuss "on talk" - originally in a thread that you started as a discussion of his edit (the original diff before he moved it) - which was that he didn't know what a talk page was. Add the Wikilawyering, and I find it difficult to accept that he really is a newbie acting in good faith.
So, probably a troll IMO. If an established user wanted it in, then they would know that they needed suitable sources, and a polite discussion on talk after your revert. If a good faith newbie came in, they'd probably see us asking for sources the first time around and try and find some. Neither would likely start Wikilawyering IMO. Pfainuk talk 17:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Possibly my own fault for biting (I should learn not to feed trolls), it got my goat when he started complaining I'd said nothing in Talk. But then I was still thinking it was just a newbie who didn't know better. I tend to suspect a sockpuppet, nothing for a year and then popping up out of nowhere to put in the exact same edit again. Not exactly subtle, we'll see if "re-inforcements" arrive. Justin A Kuntz 19:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if he was a sock - I don't know whose, though. There's a new editor there, Dab14763, who has a similar style of edit history (registered in Spring 2006, few edits, mostly on Nootka re. the Falklands) and a similar name. Until Dab directly opposed Alex I assumed they were the same person. I suppose they might still be. In any case, the debate (if you can call it that) is going around in circles and we're getting to a point where there's little to be said that has not already been said - if we didn't get there a little while ago. Pfainuk talk 23:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Thanks for the support on the mediation page. I tend to agree that mediators shouldn't expect to get much out of it, I really can't see our friend accepting mediators views on his edit history any more than he does ours. I really don't see what he is hoping to achieve, since virtually every statement he makes just goes to back up our statements. The "debate" has already gone round in circles there again and he has already turned abusive. I really can't see what the agenda is here, its eventually going to end up in arbcom if it continues as it has so far.

I still have a nagging suspicion we're dealing with a sock here, I wonder if there is any way to check? Justin A Kuntz 14:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem re. the support. I was named as a party and thus asked to give my position. I gave it.
There is checkuser and suspected sockpuppets - but we would need to know whose sock we thought it was first, and be able to come up with evidence - and I can't think of any other user who has that sort of editing style. I suppose there's some chance Medcab will recognise it. The users I think of tend to actually base their arguments on the application of real policy, rather than a novel reinterpretation of it, because they know that the latter will not get them consensus. And socks generally have a similar edit style to their creators.
I've not been at mediation before, so I'm not sure how it all works exactly, but I honestly can't see Medcab taking this on to begin with. He is so obviously failing to assume good faith that I think they'll agree that it's a waste of time trying to actually mediate the dispute. I'm half expecting them to issue a policy judgement in our favour based on the "clear policy violation" rider from WP:MEDCAB. If mediation does issue such a policy judgement I doubt he will accept it - if he does continue after such a judgement, I think WP:AN/I would be the next obvious step as I think this would eliminate the remaining chance that he is acting in good faith and just really bad at persuasion.
FWIW I agree with Narson on your talk page. Pot kettle black, I know... Pfainuk talk 17:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I concur, I'm not intending to make further statements at the Mediation Cabal. I can't see this ending happily and I'm not going to risk allowing him to needle me into doing something rash. Justin A Kuntz 18:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Archive This 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.