User talk:PBS/Archive 10

No quarter
Thank you for the work you did regarding this topic. I left a response at MILHIST. -- Gwguffey (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * One more thing...I did some clean up to No quarter (disambiguation) earlier to get it more in line with MOS:DAB. I removed the entry for the Waxhaw massacre as it does not directly mention the dab subject of "no quarter" currently.  You might swing by that article relative to "no quarter"/"Tarleton's Quarter!" should you feel some variant of that entry should be returned to the dab page. A bit of TLC might be all that it needs. Thanks, again, for you assistance with these topics. -- Gwguffey (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Pocket vs cauldron
Hi Philip. I noticed you changed kassel into pocket. I'm sure you are aware that although "pocket" may be a more common word in English to refer to the surrounded troops, the translation is in this case cauldron, and this is not an unusual word to find in English in reference to the encirclements either. In fact it gives a further way to distinguish between small and large encirclements, i.e. "division was caught in a pocket", and "the Army was in a cauldron". I would rather the full range of English vocabulary be used to describe the actual size of the encirclements, but if these have to be used in titles, then why not a pocket and a cauldron as appropriate?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 22:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added the Soviet/Russian understanding of the pocket in Salients, re-entrants and pockets. Its unfortunate that past military historians in English failed to make greater use of the English language--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 00:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

message received, cheers mate :-) (EOM, delete)
Jonathanmills (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

touch rugby
hi i see that you deleted my additions to the touch rugby page such as the official rules, history and information about the teams. i see that your reasoning is because you think the rules relate to rugby league? well they are official touch rules and it would be great if you could tell me why you removed my information added when i think it is appropriate for people who wish to learn about the sport touch rugby. sharnita woodman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skw11 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

reverting Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen articles to old version of User:Grandy Grandy
Hi, two questions relating to the Bosnian mujahideen and the Bosnia section of the Mujahideen article I realize this must be taking quite a bit of time from other articles you may be interested in. However, your assistance/attention to these articles is much appreciated and I would be grateful if you could look into the matter, perhaps consulting other administrators as well. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) both are being continuously reverted back to the version of User:Grandy Grandy. Does my revert limit (recently extended for two weeks) apply to reverts of this version?
 * 2) we/I have already gone through a very long and arduous mediation process (which I requested) for both of these articles. They are now being reverted back to the old version on what I believe are spurious grounds. I feel that should there be changes to them it is those who wish to make these changes who should convince the consensus rather than the other way around. Since these types of articles are obviously going to attract quite a few what I would call 'Bosniak nationalists' allowing people to revert back and forth is not really an option. Also, simply protecting the page with their preferred version doesn't seem fair either, given that I believe the onus is on them to justify the changes, rather than the other way around.

Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive20

National varieties of English
In a recent edit to a user talk page, you admonished the user for using a different variety of English than what was already in use at the article in question. I think it is important when doing so, to explain the exceptions to what you said, so I added the following to the section:


 * I would like to add my $0.02.... except if the subject of the article is inherantly more appropriate to a specific variety of English other than what the article was first written in. For example, in an article about Prince William, it would be acceptable to brittishize the article, and in an article about Richard Nixon, it would be acceptable to merkinize it. Also, when adding direct quotes to any article, the variety of English should not be changed from the actual quoted source, regardless of the variety used in the Wikipedia article. Otherwise, for non-nation-specific topics, the first variety of English should be maintained for future edits to the article. No reasonable person would expect you to be familiar with all the nutty little ways another variety of English spells everything, so if you add some text in your variety of English it is usually okay, although subject to correction by others; but in no case should somebody else's previous edits be modified to your preferred variety in an article that is already using a different variety of English.  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 16:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Effect and affect, please change it back
The word you use has a completely different meaning from the one originally used. The Avalon source you use has a transcription error. See also Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2007_July_27 Please change it back to effect.--Stor stark7 Speak 14:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Mujahideen
Hi, I have now made a request for mediation on the Mujahideen article (Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-28 Mujahideen). However, in the meantime, I think it would be good if the article were protected to avoid continued edit warring over content. I have made a request for this. Would appreciate if you could look into it since you have already protected the Bosnian mujahideen article for the same content disputes/edit warring. CheersOsli73 (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Confused I am
we've had a few discussions as I have ever so slowly revised the french invasion of russia. He wanted me to start pointing out Russian military successes, and you know me well enough that I don't like pointing out anything to anyone that isn't just the fact as they are stated. Sure seem a waste of breath on this subject though. Tirronan (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

'Strategic Offensive Operations'
This is now being discussed on the main MILHIST talk page Operation naming (cont.) if you wish to contribute. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Battles or campaigns...who knows - The Eastern Front: Barbarossa, Stalingrad, Kursk and Berlin (Campaigns of World War II) (The Campaigns of World War II) (Hardcover)

by Duncan Andersen (Author), Stanley Rogers (Author) Zenith Press, 2001 --mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 15:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Waterloo Featured Article nomination
Hi there. I've just nominated the Battle of Waterloo article for FA status. You can watch the nomination at Featured_article_candidates. I'm hoping that, as one of the most knowledgeable and prolific contributors to the article, you'll be able to help out if there are only minor concerns standing in the way of the final status. Anyway, here's hoping... -Kieran (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that...
"Dank55 are there any specific parts to my second part that you object to. I am willing to include examples (indeed would encourage their use) of foreign accent..." I missed this question, I'll look at the relevant pages later today. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Dern it, I forgot to tell you that I did that and had no problem with your suggestions; in fact, I really like your addition. (I was sick earlier this week.)  I just did a quick copyedit on it; I didn't intend to change any meaning (except for "encyclopedia"), and feel free to revert me if I said something different than what you wanted.  By changing "reliable sources" to "dictionaries and encyclopedias", I think I was changing it to be closer to what I understand you want...that is, you don't want people to be able to pick any name with hard-to-understand diacritics just because that's in a source somewhere.  I hope I understood correctly. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical revisionism (disambiguation)
The Historical revisionism (disambiguation) page is under AfD. Click the "this article's entry" on the tag atop the dab page and you'll be at the discussion. B.Wind (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Portal: Genocide
Hi, I just noticed that you tried to prod Portal: Genocide. Unfortunately, only articles, user pages and user talk pages can be prodded; for a portal, you need to through the procedure at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. (I'd list this there myself, only I'm unsure why exactly this should be deleted, so it will probably be better if you list it). Scog (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Nikola Zigic
The problem is, Philip, that this common name policy applies to where there is variation in name form. By simply taking someone's name and removing diacritics, it does not mean to say that this is how that person's name is in English. If it were considered important to English speakers, the language would by its very nature transcribe the sounds, or ammend pronunciation so as to Anglicise. This is not the case here, the reason that your sources do not use the diacritics is because they opt not to, and would not do so with any subject; therefore the same needs to be done across the entire English Wikipedia where there are diacritics. In cases such as Serbian (pronominal here) where there is a primary non-Latinic based alphabet, the romanised form could be otherwise redundant if not adopted by foreign languages which in turn take a name from its local form. This is the argument I will use as I hope to start a full debate, not just regarding Žigić but all other articles. Evlekis (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Burma/Myanmar protection

 * Please see Talk:Burma/Myanmar where an earlier admin action of yours is mentioned. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Revisionism and Negationism
Hi, I replied on the talk page. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 10:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

List of military occupations
Philip, I will wait for an RFC since I have no stomach for comments being directed at me. The books are full of statements about occupations well before 1907, and your splitting of hairs on when exactly the said term entered the English language may belong in the court room, but does not belong in a reference work.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 07:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not here to win friends Philip. If I wanted to do that, I'd be at the pub. I'm here pretty much to contribute with whatever little knowledge and understanding I have towards that of others. However, if you do want to be friends with me, please offer logical arguments and good sources, and I assure you that you will find me most genial and gentlemanly.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 23:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sartor Resartus
Have you ever read Sartor Resartus? It's among my favorite novels, and I get the vague sense that you might enjoy reading it sometime if you ever get the chance, at least certainly the philosophical bits. -- Kendrick7talk 18:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The citation style is a side show
Hi. I've responded on my talkpage. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Nikola Žigić
See by response to both of you on PMAnderson's talk page, to which I refer you. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, well you'll need to complain somewhere else then, 'cause I don't agree with your reasoning and you don't appear to have followed mine. Good luck though and all the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 06:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Humourous
Philip, I saw your note at Talk:Sarah777 and, while I agree with the substantive point you make there, I thought I would alert you to the fact that the word is spelled as 'humorous' in all varieties of English. It is a common error to assume that the adjective follows the spelling variation that the noun does, but an error it is nonetheless. See User:Spellmaster for chapter and verse on this if you're interested. Best wishes, --John (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Football (word) mistake
Hey, I figured out thankfully what I did because it was bugging me. I wanted to undo the edit by 85.233.228.63 (Talk) at 23:11, 16 May 2008 but the edit could not be undone. So what I did was click the last button next to his entry to copy and paste the sentence he deleted. Then I simply went to the top of the page and clicked 'edit this page' which caused me to be editing the old version by him and I dumbly didn't notice. So I meant to just add that one sentence in but instead reverted to an old version. I just wanted to point out my mistake, cheers. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution
Philip, while I think that posting the historical tag is wrong for mutliple reasons, I strongly object to the custom tag being used at Attribution. Historical should only be used for that which was once approved but no longer is pertiennt or no longer represents consensus. A proposal which is not adopted should be marked as "failed" (the new term for "rejected") or marked as an "essay". Typically, I find the latter to be a true definition since it remains an opinion of at least one editor, but the language should be softened to not appear as guidance. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: VII Corps d'Armee / Armee des Alpes 1815 and Swiss Forces at Huningue in 1815
Hello Philip!

I'm glad I can be of some help.

'''I have a number of sources which state that the Armee des Alpes was the VII Corps. Here are a few:'''

Waterloo: Battle of Three Armies (Edited by Lord Chalfont) (1979)

Memoires pour Servir a l'Histoire de France En 1815 (Barry Edward O'Meara) (1820)

Histoire des Campagnes de 1814 et 1815 en France (General Vaudoncourt) (1826)

My source for the two Swiss brigades that laid siege to the fortress of Huningue is:

Der Weg zur Neutralitat und Unabhangigfeit 1814 und 1815 (Edouard Chapuisat)(1921)

If you have any further queries about the War of the Seventh Coalition (it's armies, details of the 'other fronts' etc.) please do not hesitate to ask away. --Assisting Wiki (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent policy edits at WP:V
Your edit summary here sounds like you believe details like page numbers should only be in the guidelines, but you only removed one instance of the instructions about page numers. Could you weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability so that there is no confusion over what you are advocating? I am pushing more discussion and less edit-warring since the protection didn't lead to a great improvement.-- Birgitte SB  16:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Your note
Sorry, I don't follow. Also, probably best to post it on talk so that others can join in. SlimVirgin talk| edits 19:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:LAYOUT
You know Philip, I don't follow Wikipedia nearly so blindly as some. Notes are what people use to annotate. References are what people do to reference. The template used for the references is, not  , so I title these section ==References== because they are linked to ==Sources== thate are the subject of the policy on Wikipedia:Citing sources, and not Wikipedia:Citing references. Now, there is no particular policy or even guideline or convention to add footnotes that "expands on a specific portion of the text", but there is a Wikipedia:Verifiability policy that demands citation of sources, and their correct referencing.

So, I am staggered to understand why you would undo my renaming of the relevant sections as Sources and References in preference to References and Notes, even though the first is really a list of books the references in the second refer to, there being only 4-5 actual notes? Had this been done properly, it would not take me to fix what the two of you tried to fix, that neither of you would have known had I not come around and actually looked at the mess that it was.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 09:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor Campaigns of 1815 - Danish and Portuguese
Hi Philip!

Just thought I'd give a quick mention that Sorensen says NOTHING about the Portuguese Contingent.

The sources consulted for the Portuguese Contingent are Wellington's Despatches and the Supplementary Despatches of the Duke of Wellington.

Sorensen forms part of my Danish sources, showing that the Royal Danish Auxiliary Corps joined Wellington's Army in July. Its Order of battle can be found in Plotho. Thanks --Assisting Wiki (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Judgement
"we do not judge who is right or wrong we merely report what the sources say"

This is very true. However I do have this to say...

I make particular reference to the Portuguese Contingent and the Army of Naples:

To report that the Portuguese mobilised a contingent for the coalition is simply untrue.

To report that the Army of Naples was commanded by Onasco and was composed of Neapolitans is also untrue.

I consider it irresponsible to state such things as fact when one knows better simply because one or more sources state them as being so and incase one appears as judgemental to other Wikipedians by addressing this. This is afterall an encyclopedia and correct information is paramount!

I have not challenged the opinions of any authors or given my own opinion, what I have done is corrected the 'facts' that some authors have given as they are incorrect and are proven to be so.

In no way do I judge the sources or the authors of the sources (infact I love Chandler, Barbero and Adkins' work) but I do state the common misunderstandings that are commonly believed through such popular works, and offer citations mentioning the works which offer the correct facts backing up my claims (as citations are always needed), in this case collected and published Primary Sources.

Simply stating the facts without addressing the myths and why the myths are what they are, would result in facts being edited in favour of popular myths. Let's face it, more people will have read Chandler's and Barbero's work than those who will have browsed through Wellington's Despatches.

By addressing both (stating the belief then stating the fact) people can see the truth for themselves thus preventing the oh so familiar "That's wrong" EDIT, "Actually it's right" COUNTER-EDIT, "No, I tell you it's wrong" EDIT, "And I tell you its right" COUNTER-EDIT 'battle'.

--Assisting Wiki (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Pagemove archiving
If you look at User talk:Koavf, you'll see many people complaining about his pagemove archiving. As bots use the cut and paste method, it's become a de facto standard. I also don't see why pagemove archiving should ever be preferred, having the talk page history all over the place is far from optimal. xenocidic (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to discourage pagemove archiving
See Village pump (policy). xenocidic (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Per your concern, I've moved the discussion - though I'm not sure how much visibility that help talk page has. How much longer would you like the discussion to run? xenocidic (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Consensus was attained for this, so I've undone this edit of yours. – xeno  ( talk ) 14:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:LAYOUT
I changed the supporting sections heading on purpose. The editors are supposed to reference the article text to specific pages of the sources used to create the article. They often do not. Notes are those things that are added to expand on the text, and need not be referenced or sourced....just nice to know. Sources are mandatory. I add the following structure as a matter of course because anyone can look for sources and they need to understand that having notes to the article is not enough. The references need also be added citing the page numbers.


 * ==See also==
 * ==References and notes==
 * ==Sources==
 * ==Further reading==
 * ==External links==
 * ==Further reading==
 * ==External links==

Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 12:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * PS. A thank you would have been nice for the Hundred Days Sources sorting out.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 13:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hundred Days
I'm embarrassed that you had so much clean-up to do after I inserted a condensed version of that new sub-article. I simply thought the material had to be represented somehow. --Wetman (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

May wish to comment
Hi Philip, you may (or may not) wish to comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moreschi#Block_of_Mrg3105. Regards Buckshot06(prof) 03:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Pronoun Problem
You have been recently active on the WP:V talk page. Please visit this discussion on WP:VPP and contribute comments if you want to. Thank you. 208.43.120.114 (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Military occupations
Hiya, just as a friendly reminder, when someone removes unsourced information from a page, they do have WP:V behind them, even if their removal appears to be disruptive. In such cases, if you're going to add information back, it's usually going to be a good idea to include a source. Just offering you a heads-up, --Elonka 22:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Be specific
What is it that you want me to see Philip when you say in Zieten Hussars‎; 20:26. . (-11) . . PBS (Talk | contribs) (See WP:LAYOUT and WP:CITE)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 23:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

SOURCES- Military mobilisation during the Hundred Days
Les Cent Jours en Vendee: Le General Lamarque et l'Insurrection Royaliste by Bertrand Lasserre 1906.

Wellington and Wellesley (I've never refered to it as the latter myself) refers to the Supplementary Despatches of Wellington. --Assisting Wiki (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hundred days
Opps I sure did Phillip! I'll add it in a few hours, sorry buddy. Tirronan (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder the references came from book 1 of the 2 book series. Tirronan (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Great power third opinion
Hi PBS, I found you removed the Talk:Great power listing at WP:3O. As you know, the two editor guideline is not a strict one. And in this case, the third editor commented only once, at the start of the discussion. It doesn't seem to influence the complexity of the situation. Would it be allright with you if I list it again? Or can you perhaps provide the third opinion, since you may have read everything already, and given it some thought? =Species8473= (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Official names
I meant that the municipality of Sint-Genesius-Rode only has one official name and that there was no need for the French exonym the anonymous user had added. That's what I meant by official in this case.--Hooiwind (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

For your attention
Dear Philip, just discovered that you are interested in Peace and International Law and related subject matters. Perhaps you wish to consider the messages that I have placed here:. In this connection, you may also consider to read the following piece in today's The Observer, if you have not done it already:. With thanks in advance, Yours sincerely, --BF 12:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC).

Holocaust denial‎ GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Holocaust denial‎ and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages of a few other editors and a related WikiProject to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:RM on irregularly raised Soviet troops
(Trying desperately not to use either of the two contested terms!) You may wish to comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Narodnoe_Opolcheniye#Requested_move. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 08:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

negativity
Let's move on, and maybe there's a better basis to build trust. The Spanish speaker seems not to understand some linguistic issues. I'm kind of annoyed that my time is being taken up having to defend the castle where there's no improvement in the articles. See what others say.

How do you feel about the steam that's building up at MOSNUM about actively discouraging the use of the autoformatting system for full dates? There's a lot on MOSNUM's talk page. Off to bed now. TONY  (talk)  18:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion?
Could you have a look at the proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions? Tony is denouncintg me as a deceiver, an underminer, and so on, in his usual agreeable fashion; but the only really substantive change he concurs with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Genocide definitions
Shouldn't an article that uses the terms of "race" and "ethnic group" frequently link to the respective articles? I preferred a "see also" section because I'm not top fond of placing links inside of quotes. -- 790 (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you think?
What do you think about recent renaming of article North Korean human experimentation by User:Otolemur crassicaudatus? I am not quite sure, so a third opinion would be very welcome. Thanks, Biophys (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Great power and potential powers
Since you have visited the Great power page before I was wondering if you could take a glimpse at Talk:Great power. I think I have been very clear and concise how I believe that by creating different levels for countries that might become a Great Power in the 21st century violates No original research, Synthesis of published material, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Some input would be great before more edits occour. Thanks -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Srebrenica
OK, thanks for info. I am not going to edit article in the next few hours... Historičar (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

dehousing
The Article dehousing is about the dehousing paper which is by far the most common usage of this term -- it is not a dictionary word.

There are already far too many general articles about Aerial bombing of cities and related subjects (see Talk:Strategic_bombing) without turning the dehousing article into another one. I think a far more constructive effort than adding a Timeline regarding WWII City Bombing to dehousing would be for you to look through the Talk:Strategic_bombing and consider ways in which the articles in this area could be integrated to remove redundancy. Something I would be willing to help do, but not something I wish to take a lead in doing. --PBS (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Notes and References
In many of the article I deal with there is a Notes" (or Footnotes) section which contains a list of citations and notes created using the ref tag pair and listed with reflist. If there is also am alphabetic list of References in a separate "References" section, those two should not be combined. It is often a good idea not to put full references into the text as it makes it difficult to edit instead just include author and page and put the full book references at the bottom sorted by author in the References section (see Citing sources and WP:LAYOUT) Also please note that changing from one style of references to another to or from templates is discouraged (see CITE). The reason for this is that not everyone likes the other style but more to the point it can cause to very big diffs in the article that mask the edit history, and make it difficult to check for changes to the text. --PBS (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk page
With reference to your posting to my page of something I wrote for you to read. I placed the messages here because they were for you and not a general discussion, please see Talk page --PBS (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

ANI
FYI Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎ --PBS (talk)

Archived: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive446‎

WP:3RR
Wikipedia has a policy on reverting edits of other editors called Three-revert rule. Please read it and look at some examples of breaches to 3RR. --PBS (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Travers Harris
Please note that the naming conventions specifically advise that middle names should not be used as a disambiguator unless the person was commonly known by those names. Harris was invariably known as "Sir Arthur Harris", not "Sir Arthur Travers Harris". -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I happen to agree with the rule (although I admit I didn't once). -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

RE:Wikipedia:Naming conventions
To protect it from being a target of page-move vandalism. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @   '' 22:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your first point, the whole restricting editing and moving thing, is incorrect. Yes, of course if I protected these from editing, that would be against the whole "free encyclopedia anyone can edit" motto.  But all I have done is protected pages from moving that should not be moved without good-cause and a whole lot of consensus, and thus would have to go to WP:RM anyway (i.e. just like you did with WP:NC).  There is absolutely no reason that these pages should be moved willy-nilly.  Your second point, the whole another admin has to ask thing, is opposite of what we do.  Moving a page is not an administrative action, I have protected the page from moving by anyone but admins, thus I would expect that another admin would move the page.  Uncontroversial changes do not need to be checked with the protecting admin, and I have protected the article from moving not because of a dispute, but because of vandalism.  I have protected like 300 pages, I do not expect to be consulted on most if any of them.  If the page needed to be moved because of consensus, then I could care less who performs the move.  Recent history has shown that these types of pages are high-risk targets for page move vandals (such as him).  Thus protection is justifiable.  Hope this explains things.   « Gonzo fan2007  (talk ♦ contribs) @   '' 23:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265.  « Gonzo fan2007  (talk ♦ contribs) @   '' 18:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your welcome.  « Gonzo fan2007  (talk ♦ contribs) @   '' 18:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Your request
WilliamH (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Dresden
Thanks for your note Philip. However I am four days from flying out for Europe, so I do not feel I can make the time for the kind of thorough examination that's really needed. Sorry. Buckshot06(prof) 02:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ninth Air Force
Thank you, we try Bwmoll3 (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Japanese war crimes
Dear Philip, the rate of additions to the talk page is now higher than I can easily keep up with. I'll try to catch up, but I thought I might suggest a couple of leading questions. Perhaps there's a common solution to our concerns about the scope and title of this article and its siblings. First: suppose we establish that there's a clear delineation of some act as "war crimes" and others as "atrocities" or something similar. Where would you suggest that the others go? If a new article, what would you call it? Second: could you suggest an acceptable title for the war crimes article that clearly identifies the locus of interest in space and time? "Japanese war crimes" appears to refer to any war crimes committed by ethnically Japanese people, wherever and whenever they may occur. Surely this is over-broad. It should be clear that Hideyoshi's invasions of the 1590's are off-topic, as are the actions of the Japanese Red Army, and violations by Japanese citizen Alberto Fujimori in prosecuting the civil war in Peru. Thanks. --Amble (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Bristol Blenheim
Hi Philip, good work on the information on the Cologne raid. Just a couple of comments; Some of the information in your notes has been edited - full captions aren't needed as they are provided with the photos- and two of the photo links you've provided don't give access to actual photographs, they only link to the "Welcome" page of MFA productions. Have you got the information to complete the links (I'll leave them intact so you can update them)? Regards,Minorhistorian (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean, cheers, Minorhistorian (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply from JimBobUSA
Greetings. You made mention on my talk page that the template I have used in the Japanese war crimes article is not the right one. Rather than dilly-dally around, why not suggest one that you would like for me to use. Any template used would be offensive to the proponents of the Seagraves conspiracy theories. Jim (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I did have the ‘fact’ tag originally, but another editor removed it after a few months, because there was no discussion in the section I created for it on the talk page [here]. The ‘conspiracy’ tag is up for deletion (I am using it in other articles), and the editors requesting deletion claim the tag I used is kinder and gentler. Talk about going around in circles :::whew::: Jim (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Verb missing?
Can you just check your comment here ? It's not very clear to me what you are saying. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 17:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Crime against humanity
You recently removed a whole section from the talk page for Crime against humanity. While I certainly don't agree with the views of the poster, is it really appropriate to remove a whole section of someone else's discussion? Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the user in question is a troll, but I still think we shouldn't be deleting other user's content from talk pages without consent. See: Talk  "Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission."  I don't know, maybe it's just me.  Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, all right. It just seems like a grey area to me.  Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

edit clash...
Sorry about that.. I knew I overwrote one section of your edits, but I didn't think I removed the others. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Philippines
If you had waited a minute or two....... I did indicate comment was coming Jagdfeld (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Drago Nikolić
Hi. Since I see you are the only person I know that works on the List of Bosnian genocide prosecutions, I would like to hear your opinion one one thing. I have found a problem with Drago Nikolić. On Bosnian language ICTY page it says that he is charged, among other things with genocide. On English ICTY page it says he is charged with 4 counts of crimes against humanity etc. Are they the same person? First of all on Bosnian page he is called Drago Nikolić and in the indictment it says that he is born in 1960, and on English he is Dragan Nikolić born in 1957. Composition of trial chambers are different, and trial in one (including appeal) is over. The problem is that in Drago Nikolić page, there is a confusion as well since, all of a sudden, they say that he is born in 1957. Before I edit the page with info on Drago N., maybe you know something about this (it seems to me they are two different persons - they even look different). --Harac (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Donald Payne
Hi Philip, I've replied to your comment over at Talk:Donald Payne (soldier). Regards, Polemarchus (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

aaaronsmith
Kind of a partial coincidence. For a couple years I didn't have a log in ID because my IP only changed once or twice a year and I never made anything except minor fixes to articles themselves (although I did make a lot of comments in the talk section).

Someone pointed out I should have an ID just to be courteous to others who wouldn't realize my kind of unique situation, so I created one.

The situation hasn't changed. My IP still doesn't change much and if I'm in a hurry or forget to log in I come up as an IP. Which will probably remain the same for a few more months or whatever and then change to something completely different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.69.67 (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, and now that I notice I am not signed in. . . .Aaaronsmith (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Request
Please don't do that I heard the term exlusively in relevance to territories Germany returned to Poland after WW2 only. Likewise your explanation could be used to claim Western Russian territories to name Congress Poland. I would like to confirm that exact definition of the term. For instance is Kingdom of Germany from Middle Ages included also if it is self defining descriptive name ? --Molobo (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The White House
I noticed that in November 2005, while voting on a requested move of White House to White House, Washington, you stated that you would consider a move from White House to The White House. I've re-initiated the proposed move to The White House, and I have the request on Talk:White House (specifically, Talk:White House). I would appreciate it if you vote on the proposal (with a good understanding of my reasoning). Thanks! Jaxfl (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Unlinking dates
PBS - If you would care to read the two places in the MoS that you refer to (and with which I am already familiar) you will see two important points. Firstly, Careful consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of the autoformatting mechanism should be made before applying it: the mechanism does not work for the vast majority of readers, such as unregistered users and registered users who have not made a setting ...

and secondly, that the section "retaining the existing format" is a subheading within the section which discusses whether dates should be changed betwen d-m-y and m-d-y formats, and has nothing to do with wikilinking for autoformatting.

If you feel strongly that this article would be best with the wikilinked dates, then I'm willing to accept your preference. However, I don't accept that the section of MoS you quote supports wikilinking dates - its tone is quite the opposite - and I am not prepared to accept your threatening tone. I suggest you read Assume good faith.

And, I note that although you were willing to take the time to complain and threaten, you couldn't be bothered to thank me for my other contributions to these articles, which you have retained. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Would this be violation of Geneva Convention
 Is this violation of this:  --Molobo (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Allied war crimes during World War II, Monte Cassino
Please see Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II --PBS (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've joined the discussion. Cla68 (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on Layout (talk)
Phil, make your point here, as I had thought there was a consensus for the definition. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC).

British India/British Raj
Yet another person is attempting to create a British India page with a direct copy and paste from British Raj. Please take a look at the discussion on Talk:British Raj. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  02:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with the above statement. Here are some replies to your comments at Talk:British Raj:


 * Comment: User:Xn4 if you look back through the archive history of this article it has been proposed to move this article to British India several times, and that has been rejected.
 * Reply: I'm aware of that, and I don't support that move.
 * Question: User:Xn4 please explain why it is a content fork and not a POV fork, and make up my mind when I return. If it is a POV fork (or a potential POV fork and not a content fork then the redirect should be re-established.
 * Answer: Thanks for your question, Philip. Clearly, what's essential from both angles is a neutral point of view. British India is a historical reality, with both geographical and historical definitions, and the words 'British India' clearly can't be accused of creating POV problems any more than Italian Somaliland or French West Africa. As it happens, I suspect the words 'British Raj' could be accused of that, but I don't have a problem with there being an article on British Raj - indeed, we plainly need one - and I wouldn't wish to move its contents to British India, which is a different creature. However, as the British Raj article currently defines itself, it has an over-arching role, covering a much greater area than British India. In my view, the relationship of British India to British Raj should be something like the relationship of Russia (or else Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) to Soviet Union.  Xn4  ( talk ) 23:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

History merge
Hi Philip. I requested that the history of the archive pages for "Talk:List of events named massacres" be merged back into the main talk page (back into "Talk:List of events named massacres"). The history merge request is posted here. Since you did the original move procedures to archive the talk pages, I think it would help to have your commets at the request. If you have a chance, please consider commenting here. Thanks. Suntag (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

user:Xn4
Hi Philip, I've had it with user:Xn4's ridiculous edits. It's one thing to write an independent British India page; it's another to incorrectly change links to the British Raj (on other wikipedia pages) to British India. Please see my post: Talk:British_Raj. Clearly, when all kinds of inaccuracies are being introduced on other Wikipedia pages, we can't just stand by and keep debating the page name on a talk page. It is time for administrative action. The page should either be moved to the dab page I've created or redirected back to British Raj, until these issues have been resolved. Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

About Historical regions of Spain
Phillip, you posted only 3 days ago, I wish you had waited a reasonable amount of time before closing this debate. Some of the users involved usually abandon the debate whenever they don't like the proposed outcome. I would love to be the editor with the "bold move", but that will only cause an unnecessary edit war and further animosity between the parties involved. Issues similar to this have led to serious edit wars and Requests of Arbitration with no solution. My intention was to get several unbiased third-party opinions. Please advise.-- the D únadan 16:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Beevor and rape as war crime
I've read the chapter Vae victis at the end of his book Berlin, the chapter where he details the extent of the rapes after the fall of the city and in the rest of occupied eastern Germany, and as far as I can tell there is nowhere given a rationale for it being a War crime. Neither did I see the word used. I presume the word war crime used in the Guardian article you refer to must be the predilection of the reviewing journalist and not based on any evidence in the book it refers to, thus making the guardian article worthless for the purpose of supporting inclusion in Allied war crimes during World War II, at least per your inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Per your rationale for your other deletions of topics in the war crimes article in question the section on soviet rapes should be given a citation request, and if not fulfilled within a given time the section must be removed.

I would also again like to bring to your attention the article War crimes of the Wehrmacht which apparently still has not received any attention from you.--Stor stark7 Speak 16:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ooops, somehow didn't spot that. But doesn't change anything in principle. The text by Beevor does not call it war crimes, it only calls it "crime". The only part where "war crime" is mentioned is in the article subtitle "Antony Beevor, author of the acclaimed new book about the fall of Berlin, on a massive war crime committed by the victorious Red Army." which most likely was added by some guardian editor and not by Beevor himself.--Stor stark7 Speak 21:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

aviation spirit = aviation fuel?
Hello, Mr Shearer,

I am reading Convoy HX-106, which I see you created, and I note the use of "aviation spirit". Am I correct in believing this to be aviation fuel? Before I linked it I wanted to be sure.

Thank you,

--Badger151 (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks for the quick, and extensive reply. It looks like the aviation fuel article is broad enough to encompass aviation spirit, so I'll hook up the link. --Badger151 (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek (original series) move
The talk page of the moved page is still located at "Talk:Star Trek (original series)". Can you please move this talk page to "Talk:Star Trek: The Original Series" to keep the talk page with its article? I cannot move it since it has a couple redirect-fix edits on it. Thanks! — OranL (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ – xeno  ( talk ) 20:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Touch football (rugby league)
Hello my name is max and I am the President of Touch Rugby Italia, we got the assignment to create the Italian Federation. Our rivals (litrugby.it) did'not like at all and they now put their link into this page. As per the fact that we are the official body I ask you if what they did is correct. Tks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.140.17.109 (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC
I'm sorry that it worries me that you can say under Talk:British Raj "I do not think that User:Fowler&fowler is threatening anyone". I find him very, very threatening, with his accusations of 'spamming', 'bad faith', and so forth, and his comments like "You can say all this and more at MedCab." and "I will be requesting a formal Wikipedia mediation, with you as the main respondent." rueben_lys has said on the same page "XN4 (without supporting or opposing his work on British India) has I think been shown a stupendous lack of courtesy by Fowler, a conduct that replicates Fowler's conduct to other editors in the past", which is how it seems to me. You've been much more calm and grown-up than other participants in the discussions at Talk:British Raj, but I've also got the impression that you have a strong predisposition to the positions taken up by Fowler&fowler, however abusive he is, and as you've made previous decisions in support of him or her on the very choice you've posed now at Talk:British India under an RFC, it's quite hard to see how you can avoid at least the appearance (I'll put it no stronger than that) of having prejudged the issue. Xn4 ( talk ) 03:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have now completed my statement in the RfC. I will add a few references later.  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)