Jump to content

User talk:Boynamedsue

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KIENGIR (talk | contribs) at 10:28, 12 March 2021 (→‎Exasperated). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Trouble at Black Legend

Cateyed, on the second day of his editing here, decided to create The Black Legend, covering Spain, and to reduce the long-established Black Legend page to a rump. Before he got started Black Legend was nearly 34k raw bytes, he then expanded it up to nearly 62K, before removing the Spanish stuff and reducing it to under 10K. I haven't had time to to work through his changes, though it is clear his English will always need a basic check for grammar and spelling, and his additions seem to be reference-free. I didn't think this was acceptable without discussion, so for now I reverted back to a version before his big cut. This page gets over 300 views a day, and has always been somewhat of a target for problems. I haven't formed a view as to whether a generalized "black legend" page is needed, but if it is, I don't think Black Legend and The Black Legend are sufficiently distinct titles. Perhaps this should be resolved by a WP:RM discussion, but I'm asking for preliminary views at the BL talk page first, ideally from those who have looked through Cateyed's many additions, at BL and at the other article. You're one of the top editors, so I'm informing you. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antonio Rivero, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Dickson. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

You are making presumptions about the sources at my disposal and relying solely on one. Suffice to say I can back that up. WCMemail 14:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Wee Curry Monster Well instead of being cryptic, why don't you add it somewhere people can see. You know, in good faith, like? In wikipedia we can only go on what users actually link or cite not arcane knowledge they allude to. I'm not being funny here, I genuinely believe Dickson is not notable because of what is in the article and the sources I've seen. It's not an article of faith. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I drafted this some time ago, you may or may not find it helpful.

Contemporary accounts

Captain Onslow's report and orders are in the British Archive at Kew Gardens. Rear-Admiral Baker’s orders to Onslow, and several different versions of Onslow’s report on his visit to Port Louis, are in PRO Adm 1/2276, and in PRO FO 6 500, pp. 96 (orders), and 116-124 (Onslow’s report as sent to British chargé d’affaires Philip Gore in Buenos Aires; Onslow's orders were clear.


Onslow's report documents his efforts to persuade them to stay, many wanted to leave as the Falklands were a harsh place to live and the Gaucho's had not been paid since Vernet's departue in 1831.



Pinedo (An Argentine source)From Pinedo’s testimony at his trial later in 1833, AGN Sala VII, Legajo 60, p. 22: “… los habitantes que quisiesen voluntariamente quedan, que serian respetados ellos y sus propriedades como anteriormente…”) corroborates this:


I ask you to note that the two eye witness accounts corroborate.

The Complete Works of Charles Darwin online includes the diaries of both Charles Darwin and Captain Fitzroy. HMS Beagle visited the settlement in March 1833 and again the following year. In March 1833, Fitzroy documents his meeting with Matthew Brisbane, Vernet's deputy, who had returned to take charge of Vernet's business interests. Fitzroy also documents his efforts to persuade the settlers to continue in the islands. Both Darwin and Fitzroy document their meetings with the settlers supposedly expelled 3 months earlier.

Brisbane brought one Thomas Helsby who also kept a diary and documented the residents of Port Louis. Residents of Port Louis This pretty much co-incides with Pinedo's account in January 1833. All without exception members of Vernet's settlement.

There is also Thomas Helsby's accounts of the Gaucho murders, when disgruntled Gaucho's ran amok and murdered Vernet's representatives.

Neutral

Lowell S. Gustafson (7 April 1988). The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-19-504184-2. Retrieved 18 September 2012.


I place a great deal of emphasis on Gustafson as an American academic who has studied extensively in Argentina. The book received a lot of praise for its neutral approach to the subject matter.


Empahsis added

Julius Goebel (1927). The struggle for the Falkland Islands: a study in legal and diplomatic history. Yale university press. p. 456. Retrieved 18 September 2012.


Emphasis added

Mary Cawkell (1983). The Falkland story, 1592–1982. A. Nelson. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-904614-08-4. Retrieved 18 September 2012.



Gunter (1979)


Metford (1968)


Royle (1985)


Dickinson (1994)


Goebel (1927)


Cawkell (1983)


Destefani (1982)

David Tatham (2008). The Dictionary of Falklands Biography (Including South Georgia): From Discovery Up to 1981. D. Tatham. ISBN 978-0-9558985-0-1. Retrieved 18 September 2012.

Source for the British Government position

[1] The Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Source for the Argentine Government position

[2] Argentina’s Position on Different Aspects of the Question of the Malvinas Islands


Note specifically the claim made is that the settlers were ejected. Note also Gustafson above specifically rebuts this claim as many academic sources do.

Not to mention the schizophrenic nature of what Argentina claims.

[3]



On the one hand its claiming the settlers were expelled, in the same document it refers to the settlers left in the islands.

  • Boynamedsue, I really need you to stop referring to the Anderson case and that Clarin article. As an admin, I consider this a serious violation of WP:BLP, and below I will leave a templated note indicating just how serious this is on Wikipedia. If you need an article like that, with all of its implications (not to mention a picture of an ID, with all kinds of information), to prove a point about citizenship or whatever, then that point is not worth making. Please use more proper sources, from more reliable publications, without having to go into individual examples of living people. The BLP applies everywhere, including article talk pages and user talk pages, so please don't bring this up anywhere on Wikipedia anymore. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies. I will follow your advice regarding this case, given what has been posted on your talk page. I don't think I was doing anything that violated WP:BLP, and I would stress that no reference to any individual was ever entered in the article. It is also worth noting that EL Clarin is considered to be a reliable source on the Spanish wikipedia, and there is no reason not to think it should be here either. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It may well be that Clarin is accepted elsewhere, and it may well be that it is acceptable here. I was just struck by the picture of that ID--that seems to me to be a pretty blatant disregard for international standards of journalism. Be that as it may, the material is not appropriate here, at least that how it seems to me. It is possible that other administrators disagree with me, of course, and that is a matter that could be discussed, but speaking also as an editor, I would not accept such...legalistic? statements on naturalization etc. be based on such an article. I understand the matter is complicated, which I think is all the more reason to source it differently. Anyway, thanks--I appreciate your cooperation. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Falkland Island citizenship

I don't think any future discussion will be productive.

Your position is that because the Malvinas are considered part of Argentina under its law and also their law recognizes jus soli, that people born in the Falklands are Argentinian by birth. Jus soli requires birth withing territory not just claimed by the state but under its control.

Also you continually confuse someone who is born a citizen with someone acquires a right to claim citizenship at birth. These are two entirely different things and we cannot use a source that claims one thing to support another.

If Argentina provides birthright citizenship to people born in the Malvinas or gives them an unconditional right to claim citizenship, then there should be legislation or an executive order showing this so that passport officers would know whether to issue passports. Failing that, there should be a conclusion legal opinion. In comparison, I can provide you with the legislation that proves people born in the Falklands are British citizens: The British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983. And I can also provide a history of their citizenship status as well as legislation that provides a right for people born in the Falklands who have not acquired citizenship to apply for it.

TFD (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Mkucr talk page comment

I moved your latest comment to be under the comment of mine you appear to be responding to, to avoid confusion. Hope you don't mind. AmateurEditor (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC) No problem at all, I agree it's a better place, thanks. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exasperated

Hi. Do you mind if I share with you a maddening example of a certain user’s modus operandi?

This is what I’m talking about (and this, and this, and this, and this). Contrary to consensus here.

The latest rationale is totally bogus, by the way. The fact that politicians from city A in country B emigrated to country X does not qualify city A for categorization under country X. By that standard, a Category:Politicians from Nairobi should be placed under Category:British politicians, because of Peter Hain.

Anyway, the pattern is always the same: said user (1) does something objectionable, other user (2) reverts, user 1 reverts again, writes walls of text about even the most minor matters, until user 2 eventually gives up and finds something better to do, like stare at a ceiling. I recently had to run a weeklong poll just so I could add four words; look at the sheer amount of text expended! It’s been going on for years, too. I wish something could be done... — Biruitorul Talk 04:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Biruitorul. I think it constitutes disruptive editing, as the main goal is to wear down the other party and enforce an individual's POV without any reference to wikipedia's policies. When he tries it on pages watched by large numbers of people, it gets reverted after very quick RfC's. But when it's Eastern European stuff, he often forces his POV in through sheer bloody-mindedness. Not sure what to do about it tbh. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The other really dodgy thing he does when he has found a nice little unwatched page, is to threaten to delete large quantities of sourced content if he doesn't get his own edit through. So he will argue there is no consensus for 500 words if his 15 words don't appear, or for a paragraph if one word is different from his preference. Effectively he holds large tracts of text hostage as a negotiating tactic. Like I say, something should be done, but who is going to bell the cat? Boynamedsue (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The behaviour seen here is Wikipedia:Edit warring, something for which there is a Wikipedia policy. The first step is to start a discussion with the user. User:Biruitorul did this on WT:CATP § Prior affiliations. Several users have answered there that it is nonsense to add a Hungarian politicians category to categories about cities in Romania or elsewhere outside Hungary. I posted an additional note on this user's talk page and on the talk pages of the affected categories pointing to the discussion. If this user still does not join the discussion (which they have not done yet, pointing to edit summaries instead), continues to restore their edits (regardless of whether they break the three-revert rule or not), they may be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and potentially blocked from editing by an administrator. I see BTW that this user seems to have a long history of being notified of edit warring by other users, which can potentially feed a case for consideretion of disruptive behaviour by administrators. Place Clichy (talk) 08:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Biruitorul:,
come on, why didn't you enter in the article's talk page, and instead to another editor's one who edit mostly outside the topic and anyway not really his/her main area? (I hope not because I have had disputes with this user, and...) You mostly again do not comment on content, but on contributors, and your summatization are not friendly, just because we have discussions, btw. the outcome will be more accuarate if it would not have been (why it is a problem for you if more user's are discussing (elemental part of our policies and DR, the problem would be the opposite move)? We discussed important topics, for everyone's benefit, so I have utterly reject this bad faith summatization, to say nothing of you mentioned contrary to consensus here...I did not even know about that discussion, neither you even gave a link to that, do you think this is fair?). Boynamedsue, your answer has the similar problems, especially that you have shown great CIR and interpretation issues in the area, and your last stametemnt again shows you are reluctant to undertand our policies and still deny what you did wrong, it's a problem. @Place Clichy:, yes there many of such notifications, mostly unjusitified or boomerang one, the poster even blocked or indeffed after (also the background should be investigated). At one category I was the one who opened a discussion, which you did not join until now. The main problem has been, that Rathfelder started massive updates without consensus that turned many consistencies upside down.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Boynamedsue,
a friendly remark, please refrain yourself in the future from misleading and erronous statements, especially that you have a little experience at some subjects and issues. I never enforced any individual POV, and I have always referred to policies, neither such happened that I've got reverted after very quick RfC's, I never violated any RFC's result (and neither came so quick). As well I did not force my POV Eastern European stuff, on the contrary (and very sad you try to say such after another user just justified my accurate point, which was anyway sourced and evident). Do not forget, WP is in an incremental platform, everything may be verified with diffs, hence those who commit misleading representation of the events will be boomeranged. I am waiting to your apologies, with this you went by far.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
KIENGIR, I understand you feel attacked, I also see that many of your edits are simple improvements to the collaborative project. However, have you stopped to consider that the reason for this type of conversation occurring may be the way you conduct yourself in editing and discussing? If large numbers of unrelated editors are discussing your behaviour, the problem is more likely to be with your behaviour than with theirs. I would also remind you that you have been advised twice in the last couple of weeks, by uninvolved editors, that your communication on discussion pages is sometimes incomprehensible. Whether this is a question of WP:COMPETENCE or disruptive editing is something I can not answer, but the effect is the same.
In my time on Wikipedia, I have been one of the instigators of precisely two long-running talkpage debates which led to massive use of editors' time. You seem to have been involved in the instigation of at least 3 which are in progress right now. There is nothing wrong with holding a position, but I view your behaviour as antithetical to the goals of this project. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd debate that large number, recently one issue at another major, central article attracted more wider attention. People who just superficially visit may profile's talk page are often misjudging the situation, since I never hide, archive or revert any history (unlike others). I would not enter in the probability debate, the fact is I've got many accusations which were in fact not true, and after being investigated I was justified, on the contrary. I would not take much significant (e.g. "incomprehensible") that e.g., you, and an other editor who possibly did not read from the beginning the discussion would tell me that, though I agree sometimes some may hardly or not understand me immediately, I would say because of a type of advanced logical argumentation, which is better a methodological question. I would not abandon quality. Just because there have recent longer discussions, are not really significant, since there were periods when such did not occur for a long time. Your view outlined in the last sentence I have to heavily disagree, contradicts your premise, discussions and debates are necessary, for the benefit to the project, of course if the goal is an accurate encyclopedia. Anyone may say/accuse/dislike me in various ways, but noone may say I did not add and repaired and corrected myriads of falsities, inaccuracies, incosistencies or did not increase the quality of the project. Hence, I may take serious anything about content, not superficial assumptions about my behavior, which is unrelated to it, though I am aware for many would be easier to abandon debates and having their POVs in certain areas. You know, I am just fed up with inaccuracies, because I don't put any effort to hound editors, and any time I would feel the need to phrase something about an event (related or unrelated to eitors, either), I only do, if I really, thouroughly investigated the issue, so there is no way to generate legthy discussions just because someone did not take the time for that and made in fact non-justified/erronous statements - even it has been done by good faith. Consequently, this discussion here could be spared, if my dear fellow editor who we know each other for a long time, would inform me about an ongoing discussion (either in the article's talk, or a message to me, instead he came to you...ironically I could say I don't understand, but I am afraid I do...). Have a nice day, better than mine!(KIENGIR (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
KIENGIR I would just remind you that the moderator at the DRN also specifically told you that he could not parse your comments despite trying to do so. Being in denial about this is not helping you. The goal of commenting is to transmit meaning, no matter how correct you feel your "advanced logic" to be, you are very poor at communicating, to the point of lacking WP:COMPETENCE.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This we already discussed, he did not parse it, that's a bit different, despite he stated after he would not be, I disagreed. Your last sentence is a ridiculous nonsense, just because some people does not have an advanced understanding, is not my fault (in the talk page discussion, I transmitted e.g. very simple the situations which you did not get, or just rejected, only later I had to be more excessive because of you, who opened n+1 new sections and lenghthy summarizations), thus evidentially I cannot be poor at communicating, neither CIR issues, the counter-evidence is present everywhere. Majority understand me, only a minority not sometimes. Funny some people struggle to identify the things opposite as they are, this is an essential part of wasting time.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Kiengir, if you state something which is false many times, it does not become true, here is what the moderator said about your comprehensibility at DRN "I have been asking for explanations because I did not understand what you, User:KIENGIR, were saying, and I did not expect that the community would understand. I have been asking you to explain clearly what you are asking for nearly a month because I had difficulty in understanding and was asking you to explain. I am providing both editors with an opportunity to provide concise explanations, since the explanations on the article talk page are neither concise nor comprehensible. When I said that I did not parse versions A, B, and C, that was because I did try to parse them, and was unable to do so (and I am a computer scientist and I can understand mathematical logic)." WP:IDHT is relevant here. Communicate better, you are doing it wrong. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid such ridicoulus assertions that the number of repeats would something true, I could have said it to you as well. He did not understand me, but the as well did not parse it, which would be a necessity (premise), not expecting the community to understand means we don't expect all of them at Phd understanding level or similar. When he said about diffculties of understanding, he referred both of us. His unability is one thing, but this does not necessarily reflect the majority. Yes, not the just the policy you cited is relevant, but as well the appropriate inference and interpretation of the words.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Biruitorul, what you described above is exactly my experience at Talk:Germans and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups. If someone wants to take it to ANI, I'd certainly add my non-administrator's comment there. --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is definitely a case to be made here, or at least there should be, considering the sheer number of user hours being burned up. I'm a terrible wikilawyer, so I'm probably not the right person. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rsk6400:,
you should be a bit ashamed after your minority view of an article did not prevail, despite we had more discussions, RFC's including more editors, despite your claims have been even far more represented by rewriting the article, trying with such methods to eliminate those editors who disagree with you is really pitiful. You tried as well with me, after with Krakkos, by a spurious report about possible Nazi propaganda, just because he dared to considered among other that ethnic meaning also has the term (which anyway envident). Both of trials ended up in a failure. So please be consistent, report Super Dromeosarurus and as well all editors who did not disagree you. I also warn all of those editor failed and will fail who try to confuse behavioral patterns with contents issues, or spuriously try to identify the latter with previous one (especially the editor you pinged, failed once with this and I am not sure, but very possible by off-wiki emails editors were recruited in an issue where I was mentioned, meanwhile I was not even informed about hat discussion, but spuriously accused about acting against. This cheap methods are not just against good faith, but may result on boomerang sanctions (and I don't cite you the relevant policies), so please be calm until I maintain my good faith towards those editors who really burning my time with such personally targeted harassments.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boynamedsue&oldid=1011703832"