User talk:Langus-TxT/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Langus-TxT, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Cambalachero (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I appreciate the support :)

Langus-TxT (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing vandalism

Removing vandalism is not covered under the policy you cited. The editor above has used a number of sock puppets and has been banned as a result and is now resorting to using IP to continue with the same disruptive behaviour. The talk page had to be semi-protected as a result of his behaviour last night. I would suggest that with an experienced editor you mightWP:AGF and ask before accusing someone of behaving inappropriately. Wee Curry Monstertalk 18:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree. "The best option if there is a concern with a user's page is to draw their attention to the matter via their talk page and let them edit it themselves". Added to the fact I couldn't find in WP:VAN anything explicit about the question, I would ask you to please refrain from deleting content from here yourself. I expect from everyone that you ask me first, or at least that you leave a note if matters needs to be addressed fast.

About WP:AGF: I do assume good faith, it's only I find a little rude that you deleted content from my talk page. I don't need to ask anyone what is polite and what is not, specially being the rules written and at my disposal. Please act respectfully here, even if I'm new in this. I'm still an editor just like yourself. Langus-TxT (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at my talk page history, you'll find several occasions where people have removed such messages. They didn't ask or need my permission, I simply said thank you that they took the time. Rest assured that as I have been castigated for extending you the same courtesy, I will not be doing so again. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• @Langus-TxT: I'dd strongly suggest that you look ← way and WCM would look → way, until such time you two can get along with each other but not before that. Since you don't like WCM to help or comment here, stay off his talk page in return, note I've reverted your wee trollish remark there, don't do it again if indeed you are assuming good faith. Also, you need to read up on WP:Don't assume and the main article of WP:Civility. Best and out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 22:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

@Dave: I understand it may look trollish, but if you look all I've been through with him (if you actually read all of it, if you actually analyze every edit, if actually read every personal attack he has laid on me) you would understand what is happening here. It's no my intention to poke him, I'm just following the required steps in WP:DR by asking him to stop reverting my contributions without solid grounds for it. So I ask you to please revert your changes on another user talk page, and leave it for him to delete.

And forgive me but I don't get your point about WP:Don't assume & WP:Civility... they contradict each other, and the first one is only an essay.

Oh and one more thing: I don't have any issue with WCM coming here, I just asked him to leave a note if he deleted something, like this guideline explains. Please read my comments carefully, because that's how things start to go awry between editors... believe me, I know. Regards.-- Langus-TxT (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Update: Nevermind, he already read it. -- Langus-TxT (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Falkland Islands Article in Arbitration

Having briefly reviewed the article's discussion history, I've identified you as a potentially aggrieved editor whose contributions may have been negatively impacted by the actions of a group of editors who are alleged to be POV-pushing and engaging in WP:GAMES. I invite you to peruse the arbcom request and voice your opinion and experiences, at your leisure. The link is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#WP:NPOV_and_WP:GAMES_in_.22Falkland_Islands.22_and_related_articles

Thank you.Alex79818 (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Explanation

Reaffirm was not a good translation, so I changed it back. Reaffirm implies it was previously in the constitution, which it was not. Similarly claim is used as a noun, not a verb, so the guideline WP:NPOVT does not apply. Even Argentina descibed this as a sovereignty claim. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for this clarification. I see now you're right about WP:NPOVT (I hadn't read the new comments in the talk page), so I'll stop pushing about it; I will have it in mind from now on. Still it would make no difference to use one word or another, as Pfainuk noted too, but well.

Regarding 'reaffirm' I have to say I'm not convinced... I ask you to read again the text, because that's the expression that is used in the original source, only in the sense that it is the historical claim of sovereignty. -- Langus (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You know that any translation, particular a literal translation does not always work as language use is different. In particular, the way you wrote implied it was a re-affirmation of an exisitng clause in the constitution. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't think the quote I included from the constitution is sufficient then? Wee Curry Monster talk 07:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Then please suggest a word (or phrase) that express that is an historical claim for Argentina BUT it isn't included in the previous Constitution. -- Langus (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The comment on conventions was a local footnote, it isn't part of the British position for info. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You have to admit that discrediting a claim right below it, in the Argentine section, is not very NPOV... if you don't think it belongs to the British position section, then it should be moved somewhere else or removed altogether. I'm sure that if I start adding "footnotes" in the British claim section you won't like it either. -- Langus (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not discrediting the claim, I am providing background information. Tell me do you deliberately set out to annoy me with false accusations of bias, I am getting very irritated by this. If you think this information discredits the Argentine claim, then removing it is very POV on your part - you're suppressing information because you don't like it and making it a British "claim" is presenting false information on many levels. The neutral fact is that Argentina never ratified the claim.

Do you not think this information is pertinent and relevant? Are readers better informed with it and being allowed to form their own opinions? Those are the questions you should be asking and answering. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not after you, how many times do I have to explain it? I can't possibly know which editor included which information. Re the main issue, I disagree and we shall continue on the talk page. -- Langus (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You disagree, on what grounds. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

[1][2] and [3][4], I assumed certain edits as an IP editor were an honest mistake. See WP:SOCK Wee Curry Monster talk 19:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

And you also assume the IP was me. Your logic jumps have severe flaws. Do you realize you're accusing me of socket puppetry? I'm sorry but even if you say it softly you're not AGF. -- Langus (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Langus-TxT. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe this positively proves you don't assume good faith from me... -- Langus (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Civility

Do not interrupt my section in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-06-24/Falkland Islands Sovereignty Dispute.

For a friendly discussion use the area forseen for your contribution and not my area. --Keysanger (what?) 18:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That area was not there when I added the correction. Furthermore, I don't believe that my addition was wrong, as I clearly made a subsection for it. If you are presenting erroneous information to the mediator, I have to note it in more a visible way than buried in a discussion, or he may take the information as true and make a wrong call based upon it. Regards. -- Langus (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

<Update:> great, you deleted my statement from the case. And you preach me about civility?? -- Langus (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive Behaviour

Yes you have been disruptive.

IF you come at me accusing me of bias and POV editing, then I will not unreasonably assume you are coming here becuase it does not reflect your bias and POV and not accept your proposals. On the other hand if you come at me, suggesting an improvement you'll find me completely different.

If you attempt to impose your ideas by edit warring or lodging frivolous complaints at WP:ANI then I will become even more stubborn about not moving.

I suggest you look at the talk page, I'm accused by people like you of having a pro-British bias and by blinkered Brits of having a pro-Argentine bias. That should tell you something.

You should also reflect about how you have gone about things. You can either continue in the same vein or work collaboratively. I prefer the latter and I suggest you ask Pfainuk about how I bridged the gap between Brits on Argentines on Falklands topics. You might well be surprised by what you find. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been just as disruptive as yourself. When you become "stubborn" and try by all means to go against a proposed change, even if its convenience is backed by other editors, from both sides (e.g. [5][6] [7]) you are going against Wikipedia's values. I know that first times we talked I wasn't precisely civil, but you have to understand that I didn't know anything about WP internals. Besides, I have to tell you: you have a way of "speaking" that, in plain text and to the eyes of a newbie, looks pretty rude.

Yes, I stumbled upon the Falklands article and I saw some NPOV concerns. I am here because what I saw (a few passages actually) didn't reflect what I consider a neutral POV (you can call it "my POV" if you want to). The same way as you did long ago, as far as I can tell. Still, that doesn't mean that I think my POV is the truth. I know we're all biased by our feelings (yes, you too) and I know I'm capable of dealing with it. When there's no support for my view, I let go (e.g. [8]). When I'm wrong, I recognize it and move along, thanking or asking for forgiveness if needed.(e.g. [9]) Ask to yourself: when was the last time you did that?

Is that "disruptive behavior"? I don't think so. The problem is you're too on the defensive, and you now assume everything I do is to bother you. I can see now how you're throwing the same accusations at User:Collect: you feel we're after you, that we're using socket puppets, the we have "an agenda", etc. etc. We're not. We have a POV, just like yourself. Just like everyone.

I'm not here to impose Argentina's POV, I just want a balance. I wish we could always get along like we just did on the History of the Falkland Islands article. But it seems that most of the times you assume my edits are in bad faith, it seems almost as you have the urge to replace it with your own words. This is unique amongst Falkland's editors. You always go on and on when we're discussing a personal interpretation of some words or expression. Tell me, why your interpretations about an particular expression is supposed to be better or more correct than others, myself included? Don't you ever doubt? Don't you think that is better to strive for a neutral article that to have one written as you think is the right way?

About the "frivolous ANI": you know what forced me to do that. It was you the disruptive one back then, you forced a text into that article and reverted my contributions for no reason. But I let that go, as you actually really improved the article after that, all in all.

So, I don't know what else to say. I think you're a very prolific and valuable writer. But your attitude towards change, towards corrections, are problematic. You shouldn't take it so personally, and value the work of reviewers and the like.

Regards. --Langus (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I do recognise I can be particularly stubborn when someone tries to push me around and you pushed all the wrong buttons - but then I frequently ask trusted friends for a sanity check and have done so with regards to your edits. I don't think you would like the results and I don't ask anyone who would simply blow smoke up my ass, I'll ask someone who will tell me when I'm wrong. And when I am wrong I will apologise, I do not have a problem doing so where it is warranted.

I'm a Glaswegian and we speak plainly, I would suggest you learn to respect cultural differences and not read anything in to them. Text is an impersonal way of communicating and does not convey nuance at all well. There is nothing rude about me, its how we speak. See [10],[11].

Equally I am fair minded and will listen to an argument. But I happen to consider you were wrong with your accusations of POV editing and the original wording was better than that which you tried to impose. And equally you didn't listen when I tried to explain why.

You are also wrong that I am always assuming bad faith in your edits, you appear to never stop to think when I have acted I did so in good faith to improve the article. If you improve the article you will hear no complaint from me.

At Luis Vernet, the lede you tried to add was poorly written and very much POV, whether that was deliberate or subconscious. I improved it using text from another article and then significantly expanded it. There was a reason, you chose to presume bad faith in my editing and the ANI case was frivolous.

I do happen to value review but equally don't take it so personally if I don't agree with you. Really the response to the RFC you started should have been a wake up call. We can either move forward working in collaboration or continue as we are. I don't particularly like butting heads all the time. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Lets try something. Are you capable of leaving all the past behind and starting over with me? Can you forget all the things I've said, all the anger you felt, all the things you've done? Can you see me with new eyes, as if we'd just met? I propose you to work on very precise rules to get through future disagreements. For example, using more our talk pages or collapsible sections to not bother other editors; defining clear rules about how to use other editor's inputs to close a discussion (using them as votes); setting a time amount or word count that we should not surpass; defining things we shouldn't do, or words we should avoid; etc. We should be able to change these rules at any time by common agreement, especially in order to prevent us from treating each other in an uncivil manner. --Langus (talk) 01:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Look there is no need for anything elaborate. I don't bear grudges, all I ask is you recognise anything I do is done in good faith and do not presume anything. If you can do that, we can easily work together. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You have my word that from now on I'll assume good faith from you, no exceptions, and I'll forget all we've been through; I expect the same from you. But I fear that if we have another dispute like the last one on the word 'claim', we may be back to zero soon. That's why I say about listening to other user's inputs and count them as votes. In that particular case, Pfainuk understood my point, and expressed so. Alex (now banned) also supported me. Martinvl walked away from the discussion. If it weren't for Collect, who broke in, forced the changes and resisted your revertions, then probably nothing would've changed. If something like that ever happens again, you'll lose my current good will. And I don't want that. Regards. --Langus (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe you have deluded yourself as to the support you had. Pfainuk was ambivalent about the wording and said so, Martin supported it after I explained it, Alex (now banned and you're counting an editor banned for disruption!) supported it but then he would wouldn't he. Collect sided with Alex, who is now banned, which says a lot about his judgement and tried to have a valuable reference work banned. Mmmmm. You also started an RFC, which came down on my side. Does it never strike you, that perhaps you were wrong? Wikipedia is not about votes, its about strength of argument and I don't believe the changes forced by Collect improved the article. I am not obliged to agree with you, if I am not convinced by your argument and the correct thing to do is follow WP:DR rather than trying to use policy to force your change. I fear you still don't get it.

I am quite prepared to draw a line under past disagreements but if that is an indication you would behave the same in future, I conclude you haven't learnt from the experience. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I was writing a detailed analysis of each involved editor, but prolonging this interchange looks pointless now. I will only show you Pfainuk's comment to illustrate the big problem here: "To "claim" can easily imply that the author is doubts the accuracy of the claim. Contrasting "Vernet claimed" with "the Lexington... reports" would seem asymmetric, in that it uses a wording that could be taken to cast question on the accuracy Vernet's point but not the Lexington's. While I'm not arguing that the sentence is biased, I can see how others might come to that conclusion. While I do not think that "stated" is necessarily a good word to use (it sounds clunky to me), I do not have any particular objection to a rewording of the sentence to remove the potential for bias that I can see being read into the existing sentence." --> to me, this is in favor of changing the wording. For you, it is ambivalent. Sadly, it looks like we'll never understand each other without external help.

You still have my goodwill, as a sign of hope for a better understanding.

Regards. --Langus (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD - BOLD edit, reverted, then discussed. You appear to think revert warring is preferrable, your first action on returning was to revert. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I've seen other instances where an editor reverted your revertion and that settled the matter, more precisely here. But next time I'll start directly on talk page, for the sake of our health. I've already replied there. Sorry for that, it wasn't my intention to revert war or to cause you trouble. Regards. --Langus (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette discussion

I have made an uninvolved editors comment at the current Wikiquette discussion involving the article Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands --Senra (Talk) 10:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sigh

I see you still prefer confrontation to collaboration. Filibuster? You repeatedly judge people by your own standards. Just because you employ such a tactic repeatedly to impose POV text is no excuse. No matter.

'tis the season of goodwill, so Merry Christmas. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too, Wee Curry Monster, honestly. I truly believe that if we could have a beer some day, we would get to understand each other better. Too bad that distances are so great.

I truly wish you have a great time. --Langus (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:DTTR Look I can see what you're doing, you're blocking progress whilst being superficially civil unless you get the edit you want. You accused me of filibustering, thats all you're doing. Sometimes we give things away unintentionally. You drop the stick. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I left not only a template but a lengthy explanation of the problem below it, both of them you reverted right away without an answer. I know that that's the way you selectively clean up your talk page, but I'm just saying this for the record. By the way, a template plus an explanation is completely acceptable, as per WP:DTTR.

I've reverted to the original text again. Just because the other editors are not around now it doesn't mean you can disregard them. --Langus (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not disregarded them, progress stalled because of your filibustering. You accuse others of doing exactly what you're doing. You are now reverting sourced content, which by the way includes the very text you wanted, it just doesn't put the spin on it you wanted by omitting the content you don't like. You are trying to censor an article to favour a nationalist agenda and that is not acceptable. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Progress stalled because you failed to provide secondary, reliable sources for Duncan's version. Sourced content can be reject by a number of reasons, being one of them to be based on WP:PRIMARY sources. And I have no clue about what you mean by "the very text you wanted". And no, I'm morally against of what you're accusing me of pursuing. --Langus (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the exclusive club of people who are no longer welcome to post on my talk page. Please respect this, thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That's ok, but you didn't answer my question... should I understand that the edit summary in this revertion was directed to me in bad faith? Was it an error? Or am I wrong in my understanding of 'minor edit'? This was edit, which I marked as minor because I only corrected capitalization. --Langus (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I made a mistake that you were responsible for the entire edit. Sorry for that. I was over hasty and irritated at the time, so for that I apologise and withdraw the comment above. Again sorry, my temper sometimes gets the better of me. Glaswegian father and Spanish mother is a fiery combination. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem man, it's all good now that I know it was a mistake. Cheers. --Langus (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Allegations of War Crimes

Allegations of war crimes are nothing but smear and innuendo. Point of fact there are many documented cases of war crimes committed by Argentine forces during the Falklands War. These are not allegations, they're documented cases. Your forces machine gunned unarmed British pilots struggling in the water. Fine you want to document war crimes lets do just that. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Langus-TxT. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 00:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Biting Newbies

Nigel is a new and somewhat inexperienced editor, you might think about trying to educate him a bit better in the way wikipedia works rather than nipping at his ankles.

Although newbies may be delicious served with some Fava beans and a nice Chianti, taking a nibble is actively discouraged. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I know, and you can see that I'm treating him softly. But being newie doesn't mean you can get away with anything, does it? --Langus (t) 11:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Bougainville's worries

Hi Langus, Yes I did put some effort into the research on Bougainville's transfer.

Roberto Laver writes about the Bougainville transfer, or rather the ceding of the territory from France to Spain. What interested me was the condition placed on the Spanish to maintain the colony. It was in French national interests to ensure that Britain did not gain another colony in the South Atlantic. Especially one so close to Cape Horn with strategic value to block trade ships.

Laver is not a lawyer. So few historians are for that matter, but I have come across one. So it was of great interest that the French made the transfer conditional. This is a point of basic contract law which is pretty much universal in all international law. If someone makes a contract to do something in return for some consideration and then fails to hold to the contractual condition, then this is a Fundamental breach of contract.

Laver does not argue that "the title ceded to the Spanish by France in 1767 reverted when the Spanish breached the agreement." but he does argue that the French wanted the Spanish to maintain a colony at Port Louis to prevent the British gaining title and made this a condition which the Spanish agreed to. Contractually speaking, the Spanish claim to the title was lost by their failure to uphold their promise to maintain the colony. Therefore, the statement that the title reverted legally follows the failure to uphold the condition. I've amended the entry to say that the title "would have reverted" by Fundamental breach.

I'm certainly very keen to check the French and Spanish diplomatic archives for more proof of the Government's agreements. Most countries do publish the diplomatic correspondence and I would have thought that Choiseuls documents was the source of Lavers statement about the French condition. It must be in both the French and Spanish archives and one of these would have been published. It's a point of law that weighs very heavily against the Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands, because they maintain that the title to the islands passed to them by Uti possdetis Juris, because Spain owned the islands when Argentina declared independence. However, if Spain did not own the islands because of this legal impediment to title, then the true owners were the French or the British. Laver's statement is strong enough to include it in Wikipedia. If there were further proof of actual documents, then Argentina's claim would be sunk! Nigelpwsmith (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The onus is on the person making the change to take it to talk, I honestly can't see why you're removing that cite so perhaps explaining yourself rather than edit warring would help. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You got to be joking me. My summary: "That the title ceded to the Spanish by France in 1767 would have reverted by Fundamental breach" where is that in the source?? --isn't the message clear enough? I'm saying to you that the statement for which a cite was required ("That the title ceded to the Spanish by France in 1767 would have reverted by Fundamental breach") is not supported by the source provided.

I suggest you reconsider your position of defending a false citation. I'm not an expert on Wikipedia policies but this clearly goes against the Five Pillars. --Langus (t) 14:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Where is that in the cite you're reverting, the cite refers to the Franco-Spanish agreement - look at the diff. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's the diff. Look at line 324. --Langus (t) 14:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Laver p.30. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. The idea that "the title would have reverted" is not there. You can read it here. --

Thats it

I've had enough, I've given you plenty of chances. Please stay off my talk page. Aligning yourself with disruptive editors again, thought you might have learned that lesson with Alex79818. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me if I'm not impressed by the words "disruptive editor" coming from you. That's the reason why I gave my support to Gaba P. You need to understand that he was already investigated for meat puppetry and found innocent. Insisting on that idea without new evidence is the truly disruptive behavior (in my opinion, an abusive behavior).

Cheers, I'll stay away from your talk page. I ask you the same, on the basis of "diplomatic reciprocity", so to speak. --Langus (t) 20:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

History of the Falkland Islands

Your restoration of the text here seems pointy and provocative. If you really want the material restored, I suggest you find a reliable source yourself. Otherwise, you should have no objection to its removal. Taroaldo (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologize, I restored it with a {{cn}} tag trying to follow the spirit of WP:NOCITE and with the positive intention of finding reliable sources myself, but I've just noticed that WP:BURDEN of evidence also applies to restored material.

I left the details of my unlucky research in the talk page. Regards. --Langus (t) 05:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Langus-TxT. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yet again, its at WP:NPOVN, you are welcome to harangue contributors when they confirm my interpretation of policy is correct. HAND. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Get to the talk page!!!!!

We are now watching closely -

Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block. The three-revert rule states:

Moxy (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Ooops... I let myself get carried away... sorry for that, I'll try to keep a cool head now.

But... I can't help to notice that you're now watching me closely and not Wee Curry Monster, who has actually one more revert than me...[12][13][14][15]

Anyways, thanks for the warning. --Langus (t) 18:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The article has been resorted to a stable version before the edit war. Best to make your view points at Talk:Self-determination#Falkland Islands Again. Pls read over Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle - your bold edits have been reverted - thus must be talked about.Moxy (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with the "stable version" bit. The problematic edits were on August 24th, and your restoration took the article to a point that includes those edits. Could you please check this? --Langus (t) 18:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Your counter part has also said this ..looking into it - but cant reinstate things like "considered a continuation of sovereignty by the latter, but an illegal invasion from Argentine point of view' - as it has no refs referenced.Moxy (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

So, you are taking an stance on our disagreement. I have no problem with that, but you have to agree that "Restore article to before edit war" is not an adequate summary... I had already done that. Now you've restored all of Wee Curry Monsters' editions.

Question: if it were referenced, would you oppose to its restoration? --Langus (t) 21:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Wait are you saying that ##word removed by Langus## was there before? WOw that POV has been there for a long time? Moxy (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I take that as a 'Yes'... at several levels. I guess that the lack of references was not the problem after all. --Langus (t) 21:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

So your saying yes it was all there before? Lets get a third party ref for that then go to the talk page.Moxy (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I edited to remove that uncited POV piece of ##word removed by Langus##, you'll note the problem however. A neutrally written piece of prose is described as "problematic" because that uncited piece of POV ##word removed by Langus## is removed and he is edit warring to impose keeping it. Indeed WOW, you could beat him about the head with a giant clue stick and he still won't get it. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

1. I'm removing the improper language from your comments, please avoid using words like that at my talk page;
2. WCM, while I thank you again your courtesy notice above, I remind you that you banned me from your talk page and I took the reciprocal action. If you lifted the prohibition on me, it is ok for you to comment here; otherwise please stay away (next comments will be removed without further notice).
3. Moxy, I can look for them then. But judging by your comments, I see the problem is deeper than that. I'll explain myself later on the talk page and I'll let you know, if you wish so. --Langus (t) 01:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Moxy, in this document you can see that Ambassador Argüello refers to the events both as "illegal" and "invasion". --Langus (t) 01:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Self-determination". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 18:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Dengue

Thanks for your edit, but I added a {{mcn}} template, see here. Could you find a WP:MEDRS that states the same thing while summarizing the body of current research? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll look for an academic source, I admit that I'm not familiar with the requirements for medical articles. Although I did review WP:MEDRS and I'd thought that maybe a BBC and Fox News articles would be enough under WP:MEDRS#Popular_press, specially since the information I added only mentions the existence of a research and says nothing about the results or prospects:

“ Conversely, the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, and historical information in a medical article. ”

Are you sure we would still need a paper about these trials? I'd venture to say they don't exist yet. --Langus (t) 00:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

its cool

It is not a problem my friend Irondome (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Langus (t) 01:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

An apology

[16] I wouldn't normally post here but that revert was a complete accident. I wasn't aware I'd done it. Apologies. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries! Cheers. --Langus (t) 23:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping the section clear. I thought it would be good just for draft versions. We can comment in a newly created section. The thread is getting diff to navigate so this may clarify arguments and ease frustrations. Cheers mate Irondome (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

An apology and an Olive Branch

Another apology, I shouldn't have reverted you this morning, I can see you made an effort to address the concerns on the way material was sourced. Neither should I have allowed Gaba p's accusations of racism irritate me so much I did it again. I've restored it with a minor tweak to improve the readability - I hope thats OK and we can continue to work together. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Origins of the Falkland Islands Wolf

Sorry to revert you on that page, but I'm sure that my understanding of the research is correct. I'm obviously failing to describe it clearly. I'll do my best to explain on Talk:Falkland Islands wolf. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy with the version that you and WolfmanSF have produced. Glad to see it sorted out. Regards. --Langus (t) 23:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted

I have reverted your removal of content from Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. Editors are discussing how best to deal with the material at the talk page and your unexplained deletion was unhelpful. Moriori (talk) 06:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for letting me know. I saw it and I insisted with it... are you familiar with WP:BRD process? My point is that until consensus is reached, the contested new material should be kept out of the article until it reaches its final (and hopefully consensuated) form.

Regards. --Langus (t) 06:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The information I reverted to is not "contested new material" but an existing accurate summary of the recent development. What is being contested/discussed is how to fairly develop that information with balance. In the meantime, your removal of content germane to the article was very unhelpful indeed, to the article and to the project.. Moriori (talk) 06:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

So, you are saying that unbalancing an article in lieu of bringing more information to the reader is actually in accordance to Wikipedia's values? No, I disagree. --Langus (t) 03:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

See you around,

my friend. Keep up the good work! Un abrazo. Gaba ^(talk) 13:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

A terrible outcome... Although I can't say it surprises me...

I thank you for all your contributions in this past year, and specially for not letting yourself get intimidated by what I consider to be "bullying tactics". I've been there, I put up to it and I know exactly how bad it is.

See you around, Gaba. Don't forget you promised us some things ;)

Abrazo! --Langus (t) 02:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

South Shetland Islands

Hi, Villa Las Estrellas is on King George Island. It is one of only two civilian settlements in Antarctica (including islands), the other one being Esperanza Station on the Antarctic Mainland. All other settlements are research stations without legally resident population, although manned year-round. There have been discussions going on on the German Wikipedia, regarding the question if non-resident population should be considered as population at all. Therefore I put the legally resident population of Villa Las Estrellas as total population of the South Shetland Islands. But there is indeed a point of using the winter population of the research stations, too. Greetings,--Ratzer (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Of course, the permanent legal residence of some Argentinian and Chilean citizens is politically motivated, these countries wish to show presence in the areas they claim as parts of their countries. But the same could be said for Grise Fiord, for example, where the Canadian Government settled some Inuit to strengthen its claim to its Arctic Islands.--Ratzer (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologize: somehow I got the impression that Villa Las Estrellas was on mainland Antarctica. Sorry about that.

However, I'm reluctant to classify one of these settlements as a "civilian" population... Base Esperaza is itself composed of "científicos, maestros de escuela, dotación de Ejército y Aeronáutica y sus respectivas familias"[17] Year-round vs summer population, however, is a good point.

Despite our own conclusions, what we should do is to search through the literature what do reliable sources think about it. I did try that before my edit, but I came up empty-handed... --Langus (t) 10:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the warm welcome!

I really appreciate the warm welcome. I find wikipedia editing a tad intimidating at times and it's nice to know that I can ask someone for help. I really appreciate it! Let's see if I can manage to sign this correctly :)angelajean (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Congrats! You've earned 10 experience points for signing a comment! :P

It is intimidating at first, but once you get used to navigate through text and revision histories, the worst part is over. Don't be afraid of making changes, just remain humble and open to advices and you'll be good.

Feel free to ask me about anything, tho I have to warn you that I'm no guru :)

See you around!

PS: did you know you have a WP:Watchlist? --Langus (t) 00:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Blind reverts

Sorry to be harsh, but if you blind revert on that page again, I will request sanction. You are clearly just hitting undo and ignoring concerns about the content, particularly the fact that it includes the phrase "this week's referendum". Per WP:BRD and common sense, please discuss before reinstating. Number 57 20:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

PS, per your edit summary "use talk pages", you might have wanted to check the talk page beforehand. Number 57 20:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

PPS, I have no objection to the general content being added, but it being done so in the voice of a sole journalist is the main issue (as well as the clearly incorrect time setting). Number 57 20:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you want to work on an alternate version on the talk page of the article using those links you provided? Number 57 20:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I totally missed the new section in talk page. And I need to apologize because I hadn't noticed that the content had been added recently, I thought you were removing it; per WP:BRD, you are not the one at odds here. I'm very embarrassed about that and I apologize.

Note, however, that I did leave you a message in your talk page, so "blind revert" is a little bit unfair, specially since I did explain myself in the summary.

Anyhow, we'll carry on there, I'll present the links and my reasoning.

Regards. --Langus (t) 00:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment

Please comment here at your earliest availability. NW (Talk) 15:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. --Langus (t) 18:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Langus, thank you for responding. Although you may not consider me a friend, I consider all of you at Falkland Islands as Wikifriends.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe that is exactly what I was trying to say :) --Langus (t) 02:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Dear Langus, Thank you for using your brain to do the right thing. Few have the courage to make a stand for what is correct. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 16:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I feel truly and deeply honoured... thank you. It means a lot to me. --Langus (t) 02:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Falkland Islands award

This editor won the Half Million Award for bringing Falkland Islands to Good Article status.

Hi Langus. I am sharing this with the top ten contributors of the Falkland Islands article. Congratulations.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I deserve it, but let me say THANK YOU to you Marshal, not only for this recognition but mainly for your own contributions to the FI articles and your role as a cool-headed mediator in more than one occasion. Thank you! :) --Langus (t) 00:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Falklands on Heads of State of South America template

French Guiana is not a sovereign state but it is included on the template as it is in South America. I think if we exclude the Falklands and SGSSI on account of them not being sovereign states, we should also exclude French Guiana.

David Cameron should not appear on the template as he is not head of state of anywhere. Officially it’s Queen Elizabeth II and she is represented on the islands by the Governor/Commissioner, who acts as de facto head of state - this is noted on the template itself.

If you feel strongly that FI and SGSSI should not be included on the template please feel free to raise it on the template's talk page. --Philip Stevens (talk) 08:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The template is about Heads of State of South America. From Head of State:

"The term head of state is often used differentiating it from the term head of government. For instance, in parliamentary systems like the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Federal Republic of Germany; the Monarch and the President are recognized as their respective heads of state, while the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are recognized as the heads of government."

Also:

"Head of state is a term used in constitutional law, international law, political science, and diplomatic protocol when referring to the official who holds the highest ranked position in a sovereign state and has the de-jure powers of state. "

The key here is the concept of "sovereign state". Which sovereign state are we talking about? --Langus (t) 03:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a territory needs to be a sovereign state in order to have a Head of State. The Constitution states that "The executive authority of the Falkland Islands is vested in Her Majesty." and that "Subject to this Constitution, the executive authority of the Falkland Islands shall be exercised on behalf of Her Majesty by the Governor, either directly or through officers subordinate to him or her." So the Governor performs the role the head of state would perform in a sovereign state and thus should at least be mentioned on the template.

French Guiana is an overseas department of France (thus shares the French Head of State) and the Falklands are an overseas territory of the UK (thus shares the British Head of State). I understand there are constitutional differences (French Guiana is part of France, but the Falklands are not part of the UK), however neither French Guiana nor the Falklands are sovereign states. As I said, if the Falklands are excluded, I think French Guiana should be excluded as well. Philip Stevens (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's the commonly accepted definition of what a Head of State and a Sovereign State are; therefore, I understand that the template was created for those people.

I'm not against the inclusion of the FI, but, as a part of a sovereign state, the correct person to be included in the template is David Cameron, as exemplified in the head of state article. Exactly as French Guiana, that lists François Hollande as its Head of State. --Langus (t) 11:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

From section Head_of_state#Constitutional_models: "The same role in a federal constituent and a dependent territory is fulfilled by the corresponding office equivalent to that of a head of state. For example, in each Canadian province the role is fulfilled by the Lieutenant Governor, whereas in most British Overseas Territories the powers and duties are performed by the Governor. [...] These non-sovereign-state heads, nevertheless, have limited or no role in diplomatic affairs, depending on the status and the norms and practices of the territories concerned."--Langus (t) 11:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

François Hollande is listed because he is the French Head of State and French Guiana is part of France. David Cameron is not a head of state and (in theory) has no constitutional role in the Falklands. In fact the Falkland Islands Constitution doesn't mention the Prime Minister at all. Cameron is the head of government in the UK, but not in the Falklands.

I've been looking for precedents when dealing with official representatives of a head of state. I've found that Elizabeth II (not the Governor-General) is listed as Belize's head of state on the template for Heads of State in Central America. Obviously, Belize is a sovereign state and Elizabeth II's officially title there is "Queen of Belize", whereas in the Falklands her title is "Queen of the United Kingdom". If FI and SGSSI are to be included on the template, it should be either the Queen or the Governor who are mentioned. Given the precedent and your quote above from the Head of State page, I'm leaning towards the Queen. Also, FI, SGSSI and French Guiana should be separated or highlighted to show they are not sovereign states. Philip Stevens (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You're correct, my bad: the Queen Elizabeth II would be the Head of State in this case. --Langus (t) 03:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Marambio

You are welcome. Windroff (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep it up! :) --Langus (t) 00:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Rosas

Hi, Langus. Good to talk with you. I'm sorry, I was talking about the Endnotes, not footnotes. To be more precise, Endnote C. It was quite common until the late 19th century, both in Spanish as well as in Portuguese, to have variations of names and surnames, even among members of the same family.

However, in the case of Rosas, revisionist authors tried to fabricate the tale that he changed his surname from Rozas to Rosas when he was a child. That's untrue and part of the revisionist political propaganda. That's explained in Endnote C.

Regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well, without going intro controversy, I'm not interested in how he changed his name, or if it was his father or a relative who started the confusion. What it worries me is that we are not properly saying to the readers "hey, you may read about JM Rozas somewhere else and that would be the same person: it's an alternative spelling". I think this kind of information is vital for a reader researching the topic and should be included right in the lede or at least in the opening paragraph of the body. Would you agree to that? --Langus (t) 13:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I think Leon Ortiz's name should be changed to Rosas. There are many authors who call him that way. I have no idea why we should keep the archaic "Rozas". Either way, perhaps the best should be to create an article about the Rosas family, explaining there the difference in spelling. P.S.: I left Leo Ortiz's wikilink the same as his article's title. --Lecen (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I have a lot to say about the subject but I don't want to get into that discussion. What I do seek is for readers to get the upfront clarification that JM Rozas and JM Rosas are the same person. Would you help me with that? --Langus (t) 16:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Hello Langus,

Where should we take the Distressed securities merge discussion next to get it resolved from an uninvolved admin? I would like an uninvolved third party to determine what steps need to be taken next. I asked user Jonathan A Jones, user Wragge, and I also posted a comment to the ANI board for assistance a couple weeks ago but never received a response from either. Thanks in advance for the help! Best, Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 17:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

These kind of decisions are not to be taken by admins: they have to be decided by WP:CONSENSUS. Right now, there's no clear consensus on which path to take. You could ask for input at WikiProject Economics, WikiProject Investment and WikiProject Finance. Also, a request for comment would attract attention from uninvolved editors.

However, it is my personal opinion that you're pushing too hard for this merge; you should just WP:DROPTHESTICK and let it go.

Regards, --Langus (t) 13:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Reverting every one of my edits

I've just returned after an absence of several months to find it seems you like to follow me around reverting my edits. Is this just something you make a habit of, or is there something in particular about me that you've taken a dislike to? BedsBookworm (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I have no particular interest in you or your edits. Haven't you thought about the possibility that I may have had the pages watchlisted before you edited them? --Langus (t) 16:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)