User talk:Pfainuk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just to note: if you post something on my talk page, I'll carry on the conversation there (on my talk page) unless you ask me to put it somewhere else. Pfainuk talk

Archive
Archives
2006-2007


Contents

[edit] Welcome Back

Nice to see you back, good trip? Justin talk 20:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes thanks, good to be back though. Pfainuk talk 09:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Witney

Hello. I noticed your edit to the article Witney and, while I don't necessarily disagree with your edit, I disagree with your reasoning. Somebody does not need to be sufficiently notable to have their own article to feature in another article, for example characters feature in an article on a TV series without being notable enough for their own article. Secondly, there being no article on someone does not mean they are not sufficiently notable to have one. All it means it that nobody has written one yet, or that nobody has written one that asserted notability properly. Thirdly, red links are one of the ways the encyclopedia grows, so including a link to a page that has not yet been written is often a good thing. I would have asked on the talk page, and on the talk page of whoever added him, for evidence of notability before deleting that. Careful now! :) Skittle (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair comment, perhaps I was a little brusque in my edit summary! This was the standard used at Gibraltar a few months ago when a similar point came up (though that one was subject to a dispute involving AFD's and suchlike). I'll be a bit more careful in the future though.
Having said that, since your message I checked for "Aiden Meller" on Google, and got all of 20 hits, of which 15 were Wikipedia and its mirrors, and one other had Wikipedia in its title. I can't find anything that would suggest that he is actually notable by Wikipedia standards - and I think that's a fair standard to aim at for what is, after all, supposed to be a list of notable people connected with the town. It'd be different if he were relevantly mentioned in a different part of the article. Pfainuk talk 16:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ** and the euro

Greetings,

I noticed that you have moved several pages from '** euro coins' to '** and the euro'. This is a good idea, but I wonder why the same hasn't been done with Andorran euro coins? Andorra falls into the same category as Kosovo with regard to the Euro. Cheers. The € • T/C 17:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I did it like that because much of the information in the Andorran article - and the information likely to go in it - relates to Andorra's intended future euro coins, whereas the Montenegro and Kosovo articles don't have that sort of information (since those countries don't intend to mint their own coins, at least as far as I know). I have no objection if you want to move the Andorra one as well. Pfainuk talk 19:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree that Andorra is a different issue, as they are in official negotiations to mint their own coins. —Nightstallion 02:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Haydn Gold Euro Coin

Hi there, as a favour, can you please visit Talk:Joseph Haydn? I am putting a simple reference there to the Joseph Haydn Gold Euro Coin and it turns to be a huge argument with only one editor. If it is not too much to ask, please contribute. Thanks! Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, was about to make my comment when Opus added the image. Having looked at the situation, this was what I was going to suggest as a reasonable compromise anyway (as Theeuro says the licence is compatible with Wikipedia). A wikilink in "See Also" might be handy for navigation, but not essential I think. I'm pleased this appears to have sorted itself out. Pfainuk talk 16:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I am happy with the final results, will put my comments in the talk page. Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VK

Thanks for the heads up, given his history on the Falkland Islands pages, I've had an eye on it for a while. Justin talk 20:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your return

It is nice to see you around again Pfainuk.....if you are back to wikispeed, or when you are, would you consider a nomination for adminship? Narson (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm basically back up to speed. The Falklands articles have been quite quiet recently and I've been sorting things out with euros. On adminship... I've been looking at some of the various criteria that people seem to be using and I'm a bit short on a few of them. I don't really look at AFD or Recent Changes much (or DRV at all), and that's the sort of thing that seems to be a bit of a requirement. I know that technically the main criterion is that someone "can he be trusted" with the tools should be able to get them, and that it "isn't a big deal" - but at the same time there's this massive RFA process that seems to suggest the opposite: that having the tools is a really big deal and that you have to have ticked all of these boxes in terms of edit count and edit spread.
In any case, I think of my slightly wayward editing style, spending a long time over my edits (this, along with my trip, might explain why I've only made 750-odd in the last two years) and wandering around the place when my normal haunts are quiet. I'd probably work quite happily as an admin and I probably wouldn't be particularly controversial - but I probably wouldn't use the tools very much and I'm not sure they're worth the hassle of RFA at the moment. Pfainuk talk 23:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need help again - another argument

This time in article Schloss Esterházy, the same user (with the help of another user) is constantly reverting my changes and is asking for another discussion. Can you please pitch in? Sorry to bother, Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if possible, please pitch in here WP:ANI as well. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi there, once again.

This time I write to give you a BIG THANKS for your support and a HUGE APOLOGY for all the trouble created with my contributions in non-numismatics related articles. I was honestly just trying to bring more traffic to the commemorative coins articles (which for me is, obviously, fascinating), but after a lot of thoughts I have realized that there is any sort of Wikipedians out there. Hence I have changed my views.

I will continue putting information here and there of commemorative coins as long as is notable and relevant enough, but I will not fight any more if the content is removed or changed. I might try in the talk page to ask for a consensus, but will not die for it. Instead I will concentrate all my efforts in trying to finish the "Euro gold and silver commemorative coins" series; which is already in a very good shape, thanks to people like you.

BTW, I have proposed Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium) for peer review, hoping that can be promoted to a featured article. The final goal will be to create a Euro Coins Collector's Portal with all the series and information from articles that you have contributed, and (if possible) get it promoted to a featured Portal. If you are interesting in helping in this process, please comment here. I hope it gets promoted, and after this learning process, I am planning to propose immediately Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Ireland) and Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria), which are almost completed from my stand point.

Once again thank for your support. Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gib

Thanks for getting involved on the Gib page. It is nice to have a calm voice around and nice to see you, as always. Narson (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I got a bit bored with the "blame" bit - it seemed to start getting into mudslinging and I got a wave of TLDR (an essay which I think is quite appropriate there) - we'll see what happens. It did occur to me that our four-lettered friends may be an an incarnation of another user, but I'm not sure since they have been rather more civil than he ever was. FTR Justin seems sure that this guy is Alex. I'm not 100%, but the confrontational style is familiar... Pfainuk talk 19:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm fairly convined our four letter friends are the same person. IP starts off in spain, then switches to the netherlands before registering, then in comes annother spanish user with almost identical writing style and user name? Oh well, can't alter how you deal with people. Can't say GibNews does himself any favours, but I guess it is more of a personal thing for him. I can't see Alex not coming back as Alex, TBH. He seemed that cock sure of himself. Narson (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree - particularly since one has disappeared since you mentioned it elsewhere! I've been AGF-ing and it seems to be working (which it never did with Alex). On Gibnews I agree completely - not much we can do about it though and he does seem to know the subject very well.
Smackyrod... I had a long spiel written out reasoning both sides and not really coming to a conclusion. Then I realised that we know his IP: 201.250.35.85, which is Argentine. We also know Alex's: 72.83.213.184 - which is USA-based. Alex may be on holiday, or he may be Argentine and studying in the US or something but I reckon 95% they're not the same person - that low because of the similarity in style. Pfainuk talk 22:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I've a pretty good idea of who Alex79818 is, your second guess is pretty much spot on. Justin talk 22:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh aye, GibNews knows his stuff. Hopefully once we get these four points straightened out we can put it all behind us. I can't say Gib is a huge interest of mine, it only ended up on my watchlist after one of the argentine vandals crossed over to there. How are we doing on the falkland articles anyway? Should we be improving any of them? Narson (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC) (ec)
Gibraltar - I've been watching that article for a while but don't generally get very involved. Mind, that's the same for a fair proportion of my watchlist. I'm hoping we can get it sorted out soon. Checkuser on the four-letters... assuming they're the same person, what they're doing is against SOCK - but OTOH he seems to have abandoned JCRB and is sticking to MEGV, so I'm not sure what it would accomplish. If they start agreeing with each other again, an SSP might be appropriate.
The Falklands - we probably should be improving them, but I don't think there're any major issues at the moment. I don't like the name of the 1833 British return invasion whatever article, but I can't think of a better one (maybe WP:MILHIST would be good for that).
There's a new bot currently in perma-discussion with the aim to produce stubs for as many settlements as possible/reasonable. FI settlements are not comprehensively done, and the articles we have are mostly substubs that have been edited maybe twice - but on the other hand I'm not sure that most of those settlements aren't actually just individual farms, so there're notability concerns. Plus we'd need to get hold of some FI census data - it may be available in London, or we may be able to get the FIG to publish some basic data (population, elevation, lat/long, that sorta thing). If we go for it I would figure on generating a full set of articles for notable FI places outside Stanley (which will have infoboxes) and then merge the current articles into the bot articles. Pfainuk talk 10:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't think anyone likes the 1833 title, I've not sat down and had a good think about it. Narson (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I hate that title personally, I have tried but its difficult to come up with something that doesn't favour either POV (Return is British, Invasion is Argentine). Best that I came up with was "Events leading to the British occupation of the Falkland Islands, 1833". Even that is clunky. Justin talk 11:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
British re-occupation of the Falkland Islands (1833)? Though people will whine over occupation. Narson (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Its better than my attempt, who would whine over occupation? We should probably relocate the conversation to the Talk Page anyway. See you there. Justin talk 11:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

By the way guys, is there any reason why you haven't requested a checkuser request on those two editors on Talk:Gibraltar? Coming cold to the case it seems distinctly odd the way they appear together. Their contribution history and that of two IP editors shows some remarkable similarities. Justin talk 23:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I put in a request and withdrew it, we don't have evidence and, well, they arn't being disruptive enough. WP:SSP would be the place for it if they got disruptive I imagine. Checkusers are strict about when they do things. Narson (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Is it too late to bean myself with a wall? Ugh. Narson (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I might join you. Pfainuk talk 18:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, in my mind it is sorted now, he just needs to finalise a proposed wording for point 4 and pick one for point 2, and we are done. Point 1 is sorted and point 3 we have explained ad naeseum. Narson (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Chances of arguments on point 3 actually producing a conclusion now that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT has set in? Slim, I think. I'll suggests he rereads on that point and go on to point 2. I must admit though, he's looking more like Alex with every message - Alex also tended to write long spiels of waffle that refused to get the point with bits randomly bolded, and his suggestion we go to WP:V as if it backed him up seemed to be straight out of Alex's playbook. Pfainuk talk 19:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Having watched this from the sidelines, there is clearly a lot of tendentious editing, a lack of good faith, serious personal attacks and a POV push. Basically as I see it, he's battered his POV into the article with tendentious editing, it smells of sock puppetry. I do notice certain characteristics straight out of Alex's playbook as well. Did you think about taking this to mediation? Justin talk 20:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I find myself constantly wanting to scream tl;dr. Did you see the size of that page now? I can see what you mean about Alex...though that would make Alex some kind of master sock puppet user, and if he was, wouldn't he have pursued Justin more? Narson (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict)
Responding to Justin...Well, the intro I think he had a point, the previous wording was clunky and sovereignty didn't need to be mentioned (It is f-ing complex with the various claims and counter claims). However in the text? I think the lead is there for someone to glance at and gain a quick summery. Once we are in the body of the article, we have space to go into things if we want. Narson (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It's got the same way with the Falklands Medcab in that at this point he isn't arguing to find a solution - and he's not AGF-ing, so I don't think mediation will help. The initial point was fair enough if badly expressed - some academics argue the point and allowing the fringe view in without acknowledging it was a decent compromise at the time. But he seems now to be claiming consensus that it's as valid as the mainstream view, which it isn't. He still seems to claim the Spanish government agree with the fringe view when they themselves say the opposite. It doesn't help that my argument against changing it isn't the simplest in the world. In any case, we shouldn't be over-accepting of fringe theories, and this is one.
On the sockpuppetry, if it is Alex it may be a front to start on other articles and get a respectable edit history before laying into Nootka and the Falklands (which was the other account's single purpose) - or he may have decided that's a lost cause. The ease with which Justin ID'ed Smackyrod may be significant (assuming they're the same person). We already have some evidence that MEGV and Alex79818 have both sockpuppeted - it's not inconceivable that they are the same person. And it's not difficult to get IP's from all over the place associated with an account. The IP's that have edited my user page & (now redirecting) "countries" subpage are in the UK, Bolivia, Finland and Laos - all were me and I didn't use proxies. Pfainuk talk 20:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Alex gave himself away on the Smackyrod account. I always check the contribution pages of IP vandals as they often splurge on multiple pages. Smackyrod also edited on the Monroe doctrine with a POV edit and repeatedly reverted, he then posted on the talk page, it was pure Alex and a light bulb went off in my head. I'm about 80% certain I'm right but calling him out on it may have deterred him.
Given the single minded purpose of the Alex79818 account, obvious familiarity with wiki policies and processes, I was certain it was a sockpuppet. I did a little googling to try and figure out his main account and found he was really careless with personal information. Within about 5 minutes I'd pretty much figured out who he was, where he lived, his home town and a couple of his relatives. I had two main accounts that I suspected but nothing concrete and the Alex79818 seems to have been abandoned since January. I suspect it was an old account reactivated for a POV agenda and abandoned as it was associated with too much personal information.
I dunno guys, you've done the right thing so far. Gibnews may have slightly shot himself in the foot with some personal attacks. There is clearly a single minded purpose here; to put a fringe position into the article with undue emphasis. There is some indication of sock puppetry - I just don't buy there are two editors there. They style is all Alex but I'm not sure he was up to using proxies (but that isn't exactly rocket science) and sock puppetry is a new one for him (but not beyond the realms of possibility). It seems to have got to the point where he's just trying to grind you down with a tendentious argument till he gets his own way. WP:RFC? Justin talk 21:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Grind me down? He'll have a time. All he is doing is hardening my view. His 'I'm unwilling to compromise' attitude gets my goat. And by jove sir, my goat shall be returned! Narson (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) Yes that's my feeling as well, but point 3 seems to be at an impasse anyway (I'm AGFing on the talk page and suggesting he's unintentionally misunderstood, but I don't believe it). On past performance I hardly think that if the remaining points are resolved he will just go away. JCRB has vanished, but if he returns we ought to SSP them. Pfainuk talk 23:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey look, when it appears he has smacked a brick wall, JCRB comes out again! And agrees with him! Colour me suprised. Narson (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Shocker, isn't it? How d'you think an RFC would go down - or a comment at WP:FTN? If only to end the discussion once and for all because I don't think it will end unless that sort of thing happens. Pfainuk talk 18:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Does it even count as a fringe theory? It is a debate among a small number of academics. THe main spanish claim under the Treaty of Utrecht is that the 1967 granting of autonomy meant Britain no longer wanted the colony thus it should revert to spain. Also that Britain broke the treaty by expanding into the isthmus. It also holds that spain cannot transfer sovereignty (claiming it is 'unwaivable'). If we tried to list all the claims in every damn sentence that mentions sovereignty, the article would be five miles long. Unfortunatly we don't have evidence for SSP and it is not disruptive enough. We might do well to bug an admin for some advice. I might ask Roger or Ryan Postlethwaite to check and let us know what we should do. Narson (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. At any rate, I won't make any response tonight, and I'll check back tomorrow, though I'm having a bit of a busy weekend! Pfainuk talk 22:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh look, he's agreeing with himself again. Just a thought, are there any sources for the fringe view that don't state/imply it as the Spanish position (contradicting the Spanish government)? It just occurred to me that this was something I may not have properly looked for before and I couldn't find any in a quick check through the discussion. Pfainuk talk 20:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the sources are crap anyway. The author he cites? She is /such/ a successful academic that she published one book and then quit academia to be a trader. Clearly an authoritative source there. 22:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC) (Preceding message by Narson - added by Pfainuk 23:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC))
Lol - I didn't know that. Hoping you don't mind my minor stalkage, it looks like Roger made a pretty good point - one thing that's crystal clear is that there's no consensus for change. I've backed up your message on the talk page. Pfainuk talk 23:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. I kind of feel guilty for being so blunt on the Gib page but this silly waste of time has to stop. I am sure he means well, I can understand how people feel 'national blocs' prevent the 'truth' from being in Wikipedia, but this is not helping any of us. Narson (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah - it needs to be done though or else this will never end. It's not like he hasn't had plenty of opportunity to air his views or that there's much likely to come out of more discussion. It is true that sometimes national or other blocs of editors prevent NPOV, but it's pretty clear to me that this isn't such a case. Pfainuk talk 15:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
If you want NPOV, don't go to the non-English wikis :) Much smaller pools of editors results in much larger POV pushing. Narson (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I quite enjoy nosing around them. Which means that having switched to SUL I now have editless accounts on about 40 different projects in languages that I don't speak. I even got welcomed to the Catalan Wikipedia which was a bit random. Pfainuk talk 22:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that this sort of thing doesn't always come over well online, my comment was more directed at MEGV/JCRB than you - the challenging was based on the assumption that if I didn't say it, MEGV/JCRB might complain when I promptly challenged/reverted him for lack of sources after he just copy-pasted that text into the article. Certainly no offence intended on your side. Pfainuk talk 21:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hrm? I don't think I have all the answers ;) I simply think it is best in these things to state what you consider to be the utter limit. I think I'm likely the one most willing to bend on the talk page, so hopefully if he sees the limit of what I will go to, he will seek consensus within those bands. I have not got into how anything he wants added from all the topics still needs cites, I didn't want to be deluged with huge chunks of texts from books again :p Narson (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I thought I caught a bit of a "harumph" tone from your message and wanted to make sure the air was clear (tones of voice and things aren't always obvious when online) - no biggy :). As I said on the page, I'm not really happy to go that far: I think it's a small and not very relevant detail - but that might just be me being bloody-minded. I'm pretty sure Gibnews won't be happy in any case. Pfainuk talk 22:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bearer of bad news

Seems to be the season for it, i woke up to find someone had created the category British occupations and put the Falklands War, BAOR and other articles into it. Looking at the guys talk page he seems to have a history of disruption. I've removed the category from many pages and recommended it for speedy deletion. Can you guys keep an eye on those pages for more disruption? Justin talk 09:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)