User talk:PBS/Archive 11

PSTS Policy & Guidelines Proposal
Since you have been actively involved in past discussions regarding PSTS, please review, contribute, or comment on this proposed PSTS Policy & Guidelines.--SaraNoon (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian mujahideen
I realized there is a pattern in anon's behaviour. Anon from Scandinavia is editing just two articles: Bosnian mujahideen and Alija Izetbegovic - with different IPs.


 * 85.224.135.70 (Stockholm)
 * 64.72.116.208 - Proxy - a revert to the version by 85.224.135.70
 * 85.224.132.168 (Stockholm)
 * 85.224.133.98 (Stockholm)
 * 79.102.119.194 (Sweden)

--Kruško Mortale (talk) 05:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As you asked me to write my opinion about version I have been reverting to, you might want to read it here -> Talk:Bosnian_mujahideen.

--Kruško Mortale (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Russian Army 1815
Having seen his name in Plotho I sought to discover more about him but drew blanks when using the spelling as used by Plotho. 'Dokhturov' is the most commonly used which is what I should have used rather than the one I used, as it keeps the harmony between the articles. What I changed was the ending sound as it is an ov sound as opposed to a ow sound.

As you know no doubt know the Russians use the cyrillic alphabet and not the latin alphabet.

His name in Russian is Дохтуров. B in Russian is pronounced as V not W.

Hope this clears things up a little. --Assisting Wiki (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

United States Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific
I'll try to help with this. Take care.. Bwmoll3 (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring
As I'm sure you're aware of all of the definitions, pages and standard warnings, having engaged in similar before on MoS pages, I won't provide links you are surely already familiar with. I'm sure you've aware that you are edit warring against consensus on WP:LAYOUT, altering long-standing text and reverting twice now in spite of no other editor yet having concurred with your changes. Please develop consensus on talk pages before altering pages against consensus. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you please review some comments left on my talk page? I don't really know how to deal with this. Thanks. Damwiki1 (talk) 04:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin
Hi, thanks for your copy-editing! However, I believe the lead is shortened to much now. Would it be possible for you to add few details to it and expand a bit? Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, it seems to me that you are familiar with this article. I am very doubtful about the number of german KIA. Do these losses stemp from a large operation than the operation that the soviet losses relate to or are they made by a mistake?


 * Most sources I find in books estimates the number of soviet KIA to the same number as in the article about the Battle of Berlin and writes, in the close following, that "initial estimates" puts the number of german KIA to roughly 23 000 (a number that most likely concerns only the Battle in Berlin, since the KIA during the Battle of Halbe alone reaches almost 30,000 (according to the article)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.224.186.123 (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Pacific Air Forces
I should have put the "underconstruction" template up, as I think we're clashing a bit on the editing of this article. I started to expand it last night. And I appreciate your editing :)

I'll back off on this the rest of the day (sometimes real-life work gets in the way of wikiediting) so go ahead and have at it for a while. This article was in dire need of expansion and hopefully in a few days it will be finished (as much as any article on wikipedia is ever finished :)

Take care. Brent Bwmoll3 (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Western Front (World War II) End of the war
Dear Philip. I don't think the link you introduced into the European Theatre of World War II article is better, because, as we already discussed, the outcome of the war was a result of collestive efforts of the Western Allies and the USSR, whereas the link directs to the Western Front only. I would like to know your rationale of doing that, otherwise I am intended to revert your edit. Best regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

links
Many of the current editors participating at Wikipedia talk:External links are extreme exclusionists/deletionists/immediatists/wikilawyers (see (still excised) and Wikipedia_talk:Dead_external_links). Take what they say with a mountain of salt. (and help fix their damage if you can) frustrated (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible problem
Hi Phillip,

I don't know if you're an admin these days, but if you are could have a word with User:Ausiephil2008. It looks like he's prmoting a book (very likely his own) on Cromwell in Ireland and dumping it into all the articles on the subject. Any help would be appreciated. Check it out. Any help would be appreciated.

Jdorney (talk) 11:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian mujahideen
Hi Phillip. I left my comments regarding Mujahideen article. As you suggested to merge two versions I reverted to the version with the parts deleted by anon (background section). If you have time, I would like you to review current version, and include or exclude parts you think doesn't belong there. I think I gave very good arguments with the links for the current version, anon just repeated the same questions, for which I think it's just the way to prolonge discussion without any progress. Kruško Mortale (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously KM and other Bosniak editors are willing to simply revert the article back to their preferred verson (which I find deeply POV) without entering into any discussion. As far as I can see it the version supported by KM has been disqualified following lengthy discussions and previous conflict resolution processes. It seems a bit strange to have to start a new process going through the exact same issues as before every six months or so because a number of Bosniak editors dislike the topic. Do you have any suggestions for how to move forward? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osli73  (talk • contribs) 17:21, 6 December 2008

Ba Chuc massacre
French language. All it needs is to switch oneself to a wider world

http://khmercanada.site.voila.fr/cambodge64.htm

Video of vietnamese masscred under Lon Nol and Pol Pot:

http://khmercanada.site.voila.fr/atrocites.htm

Video of back to life:


 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hBlHN-wtzY&mode=related&search=
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3UzzQ-9uu0&mode=related&search=

1970 “Coup d'État” of Lon Nol and massacre of vietnamese minorities in Cambodia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrTPQIHxfMs&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgFuEu4gZSE&mode=related&search=

Takima (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

British India
I think we need to reach some closure on the fate of British India. Could you stop by and take a look when you get a moment? Thanks. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 15:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Honolulu et al
I've not kept track of the debate to move big cities like Honolulu, but if more get moved, would you please update their county templates? For example, see this diff. Nyttend (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason I ask you, not Cashman, is that it's a lot of work for one person to do (look at all the templates at the bottom of San Antonio, for example, nearly all of which link to San Antonio, Texas), and unlike Cashman, you know when the page is getting moved. Nyttend (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note about completion; otherwise I'd be wondering how many more were left :-) Nyttend (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Big Ben move despite lack of consensus
Though I strongly support the move to Big Ben, I think your moving it despite the clear lack of consensus is an example of abuse of power by an admin. Sorry, but it has to be said. This is not the way decisions should be made in Wikipedia, even when they're the right decisions. When consensus in favor of a move is not there, status quo needs to prevail (unless there are obvious extenuating factors to consider, which in this case there were not).

By the way, I think your decision to exclude St. Louis and Cleveland from the big U.S. city move was also inappropriate, since consensus clearly favored moving of the entire list, including those two cities. However, that problem can be remedied by having individual moves proposed for those two (which I won't do, but probably someone will). --Serge (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Will you please address the concerns that both Serge and I have identified on Talk:Big Ben. Chillysnow (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The arguments you have presented here just don't hold water. How long the article was called Big Ben in the past is of course entirely irrelevant.  And your assertion that if my logic had been followed then the article would have been moved in Jul 2007 is entirely false.  In fact, there was no clear consensus there either, as it plainly says in the summing up on that page.  I quote:  Although there is a majority of opinion in favour of the move, it is not overwhelming, and much of the support was admittedly reluctant. Many contributors are adamant that the tern "Big Ben" should only be used for the bell itself. It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. User:Stemonitis.  So we are back to the position that you have moved the page with no clear consensus, which is a flagrant abuse of admin power. You seem to be deliberately ignoring valid concerns so I see no alternative but to take this to dispute resolution. Chillysnow (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-11-07 Big Ben Chillysnow (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I'm the mediator in the case. I would definitely appreciate your involvement so that an amicable resolution can be achieved. I understand of course if you would prefer not to participate; MedCab isn't binding in any way. Let me know at the mediation page if you would like to participate or not. Cheers! [ roux  ] [ x ] 01:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Peter. I have those requirements in place because I've found that they ensure both parties are serious about participating with open minds. I won't be reading any of those links to ensure that I participate with an open mind. All I know is that Chillysnow feels that there is a dispute and feels that you're the source of it, and MedCab is one way to resolve that dispute. If you don't wish to participate, that is your choice of course, but I would hope that you trust me to approach mediation with an open mind for a) both parties, b) the ramifications of any outcome, and c) a wide variety of possible solutions. [ roux  ] [ x ] 16:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Philip (and I can't believe I called you Peter.. TWICE). I haven't read the links because I don't want to prejudice myself in any way. Once both sides have told me why they're right (with supporting diffs and links of course), then I will look through everything you two have provided, and decide whether it's the right venue, how to proceed, and start figuring out ways to bring you both to an agreement. I think it's only fair that I open and begin the case with a totally open mind; I'm sure you would expect the same if you ever had to open a case. I hope I'm explaining my position. Please let me know if I'm not. [ roux  » x ] 18:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I'm Mononomic, and I'm the new mediator on the Big Ben MedCab dispute. I'd like to know if you wish to participate, so we can either begin mediation or close the case. Whenever you have a chance, please go to Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-11-07_Big_Ben. If you do not wish to participate, please let me know on my talk page. Thank you! Mononomic (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright PBS, confess to making an edit to Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster just to prevent us non-admins from moving the article back!!! [ |Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) | ] 23:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Look Philip, I just can't belive that you can't get it (Or maybe you do and you just won't admit it) that when you moved the article to Big Ben you did it even though the consensus for the requested move was opposing the move!!! Look, if the consensus for the move had instead supported the move, then you would have done the move fair and square and all this you are saying about another RM to move the article back would all be true. But that was not the outcome! So therefore everything you said was false. You saw the requested move on the page and since you were an admin and had the power to close moves you decided to ignore the consensus and do the move because of your own opinion, and then that created this massive dispute which you then had to make as hard as possible to resolve by making an edit to the former article page just to protect the article's new name which followed your own opinion!!!!! Look, what me, Chillysnow and others have been saying about the move are not lies! We are not lying about a single thing! If you hadn't done that move, then all this bickering would have never happened. Have you ever heard of WP:IAR? Do you know what it means? It means: If a rule (in this case WP:COMMONNAME) prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia (in this case obeying WP:CONSENSUS (a more important policy) by taking action on the move based on the consensus), ignore it. Don't you want this dispute resolved? Look, PBS, since you have already destroyed all hopes of us resolving the dispute, I can do no further but to look to you. You have to cooperate with me on this! You have two choices on what you can do:

You can either:
 * Cooperate with me on this and resolve this dispute.
 * Be selfish and just ignore me on this and make another excuse.

If you don't cooperate with me on this, PBS, this dispute will never be resolved, and it will all be Your fault.

Admins don't always know best. You're just another human being like I am.

Regards.

-- [ |Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) | ] 22:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I shoud've known you would completely ignore me. Shame on you. [ |Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) | ] 02:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but where you are ignoring me is: you are completely ignoring the fact that you made that move without consensus! Why are you totally ignoring me (and Chillysnow) with that? [ |Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) | ] 08:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Now you really are completely ignoring me on this. PBS, since you made the move without a consensus that supported it, you are violating WP:CONSENSUS and it should be legal to revert the mistaken move without another RM. You just want us to have another RM because you know that it may turn up with an even consensus, and the article would stay with the name YOU want. This is one of the largest disputes I have ever seen, and the irony is that it was started by a admin! [ |Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) | ] 03:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I still have two questions: One, Why have you not told us about that before? and Two: Whats the purpose of a requested move if a policy should override it anyway? The examples presented at WP:COMMONNAME are not examples as similar to this article: COMMONNAME presents examples for naming articles the common name when it's darn obvious they should be named that anyway: like naming the article on dogs Dog instead of &lt;scientific name&gt;! It's darn obvious that that article should be named that common name because the technical name is only used by a very very very very very limited amount of people. But with the Clock Tower, it's basically relatively close to 50-50! With a case like that, I would think that the consensus should matter more, and if not, than some of Wikipedia's policies may need a little rewriting. This dispute may have been a bit shorter had you let us know of that earlier, but it still does not resolve it to me. [ |Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) | ] 09:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, so basically the hell with the consensus if there is a policy/guideline that may the slightest bit prefer one side of the disscusion! [ |Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) | ] 09:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, that section on WP:CONSENSUS you were talking about was added on January 7 by someone else. Seeing that section seems to bring a compromise in my mind. Remember that it was only added 17 days ago, so it is fairly recent. Me, Chillysnow, and others had no idea that such a policy existed, so therefore we saw moving the article without consensus as violating Wikipedia policies. Seeing that WP:CONSENSUS itself supports your descision, I am now satisfied that this dispute is closed. Though I would suggest that a little cleanup be preformed on the article's introduction. [ |Retro00064 | (talk/contribs) | ] 04:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Miami
Nope, nothing needs to be done ... all the deleted revisions are useless for GFDL purposes. I'm pretty sure I took into account all the history from the other U.S. city articles that were moved along with it, but I'll check them out just in case. Graham 87 23:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Nichalp's comments
Would you like to comment here? Thanks. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  16:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin 2
Hi Philip. I was unaware of the discussion in the talk page. I only added the total figure of 1,047 aircraft to the infobox in order to avoid a contradiction with the (sourced) text of the article. I have reverted my edition, however, since a good number of authors include only the losses over Berlin itself or in missions targeting the German capital (indeed, about 500 bombers lost). Nevertheless, things need to be fixed in this article. I think this is a case of disagreement between different sources; some consider "Battle of Berlin" all the RAF air raids wich took place inside Germany boundaries from November 1943 till March 1944.--Darius (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

British India
Hi Philip, Just thought I'd let you know that a final version of the text for British India has been arrived at with user:Nichalp's input and suggestions. I will be moving the text to the mainspace. Since you had started the RfC, I was wondering if you might like to make a comment or two on the talk page and wind it up. Thanks for this long and patient effort! Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

warning
Why did you put a warning on my talk page on oct. 26th? Your reason was that I was uncivil on a talk page, when I looked at my comments I saw nothing offensive. Maybe you should warn the user who denies the Armenian Genocide--Moosh88 (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous user comments
I was wondering why you struck all the comments made by anonymous users when closing the move discussion at Talk:Big Ben? Is this normal practice with move discussions? Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, as I said I'm not that familiar with the process and it's good to find out a bit more about it. Guest9999 (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheap demagogy
My reply

First I didn't read this, but anyway this is sad and ridiculous. It's obvious now that you're on anon's side, and two of you cooperate. You protected the page twice, reverting on his version before that. This is clear example of demagogy and misuse of admin privilages. But this isn't over, I am going to ask mediation or some other way to point out your behaviour. Kruško Mortale (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

See Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive492

Message
WilliamH (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Treaty of Paris (1815)
The changes to the dates are in line with the MoS - see WP:DATE "Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes, articles, or leading zeros." As for unlinkng Switzerland but keeping English Channel - it'a matter of judgment. It's my feeling that most people will know enough about Switzerland not to need to follow a link to establish the basics about it, but the same might not be true of the English Channel. However, it's a bordeline case, so if you feel differently, I won't argue. Colonies Chris (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Blücher
"Blücher" is the spelling which the editors of the article on him have selected for the title of that article. I'm making internal references to him consistent with that choice. Colonies Chris (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The implication of what you're saying is that articles should use different variants of a person's name, even within the same article, if the original sources for different parts of the article differ in their spelling. It makes sense to standardise on the spelling which other editors have agreed upon. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I repeat - by your logic, a single article might have to have different spellings with it, or different articles mentioning the same person might have different spellings just because the sources differ. That's a nonsense - especially in the case of a name like Blücher which has often been spelt differently solely because English-language printers didn't have, or couldn't be bothered with, the umlaut. That was his name and that's the spelling he used and that's the title of the article on him. The fact that various sources spelt it differently due to technical limitations is utterly irelevant, and I utterly reject your attempts to bully me about this and other things. I suggest you adjust your attitude to be less aggressive. Colonies Chris (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Apostrophes inside or outside the link
There has been debate on this, and the MoS allows both styles. I feel that keeping the possessive apostrophe outside the link makes clear that the link is to the name, and the possessive is a suffix to that. One example that has been given in discussion of the lack of clarity thay can occur is that George Washington's clearly means "belonging to George Washington" but George Washington's might be the name of a bar. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Country lists
Just wanted to say thankyou for making a start on the changes to sort out all the country lists.. Good job BritishWatcher (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Cliche
I think you sent the deletion notice to the wrong user.

No Prob. Jaberwocky6669 (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Query
Hey Philip, did you mean to make the edit you did on WTA terrorist? I was confused by your edit summary. IronDuke 01:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Great Power
Obviously there must be a mistake.

I would like to thank ACamposPinho, Lorenzop, - Izzo, Hadrian1, PBS, Kayac1971, Chanakyathegreat and many others for the important research material produced in these discussion's pages - Great powers. I would like to thank Viewfinder too for your reason.

Thanks anyway to everybody – in particular UKPhoenix79, Nirvana888, Colliver55, Deavenger (in Italian Language Commarelle) – for the kind assistance. I go to work.

Poti —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC).

Unilateral changes to 'Roma people'
Please stop your non consensual changes to this page. Further edits in this vein will be treated as vandalism unless previously discussed at talk page. RashersTierney (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, your unilateral move was non-constructive, and your argumentation based on the OED (which I myself had also proffered at one time) is out of step with developments in the academic field of Romani studies. Since there has been so much toing and froing over the naming of these articles, I really can't see how you could possibly have viewed the move you made as being uncontroversial or reflecting some sort of consensus. —Zalktis (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of assuming good faith as demonstrated by your recent contributions to the discussion in question, I have struck through my initial edit and hope that the dispute can be resolved by consensus and the way opened to improving the article generally. RashersTierney (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Roma people talk page
I've reverted your massive edit of Talk:Roma people, which incidentally even removed WikiProject banners, etc. This may have been a failed attempt at archiving on your part (although I expect, as an admin, you know what you're do in this area). Since you refrained from added an edit summary explaining your actions, this edit could also be construed as talk page vandalism, since it removed previous thread referred to in the material left behind. —Zalktis (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I apologise for jumping the gun. —Zalktis (talk) 08:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you strike through your recent (pre realising error) assertions on the Talk Page re. OED. It might otherwise confuse new arrivals. Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chillysnow (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * See Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive496
 * See Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive496

Mujahideen / Bosnian mujahideen
Hi, since the conflict on the Bosnian mujahideen article is spilling onto the main Mujahideen article (section on Bosnia) I would very much appreciate if you could extend your involvement also to that article (or at least that section of the that article).Osli73 (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to protest that I find it rather meaningless to present arguments on the talk page for edits which are then blankly reverted by the likes of User:Historicar without explanation or discussion. Any suggestions for a more formal process or other remedies?Osli73 (talk) 07:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Flora
How's this text do for addressing the problem? all we need is enough room for COMMON NAME to operate when it applies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Re
Thanks for bringing the correct spellings to my attention, I was unaware of that when I was using AWB. I'll make sure to not make the same mistake again. --QueenCake (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

British India
Hello. I am a little confused by the technical side of your move of Provinces of India to British India. No deletion of the useful article at British India is agreed (and, indeed, the merger seems to be sudden and without a regular merger process). As I have no objection to a genuine merger, I am not greatly troubled, but where now is the text which was at British India, and its page history, please? Strawless (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your answer elsewhere, PBS. After leaving you a note here I found your suggestion at Talk:British India, "I will leave it to others to merge any relevant text from British India/Article during the second half of 2008 into this article" and completed the merger so far as seemed reasonable. Now that the main text of the pre-existing article at British India is merged into the new one, including the Further Reading section which we have built up for the title, I believe this is a successful outcome. I am just a little puzzled by your comments about history, as the history of the old British India article as it was before this merge actually appears to be much older than that of the Provinces of India page (going back to 2002, not 2005), but I suspect there may have been other page moves which have confused the picture and so long as all is preserved, I see no problem. By the way, you missed the double redirect you created from Provinces of British India, via Provinces of India, but I have redirected it. Strawless  (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Category: Roundheads vs Parliamentary supporters
A previous discussion appears to have rejected the change to category Roundheads. Has there been a subsequent discussion? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 14. I am being bold. When that decision was taken the article Cavalier was not as that name. Now that there are two articles Cavalier and Roundhead, it makes sense to have the categories under the same names as the Wikipedia articles and not longer more verbose descriptive names. Like Cavalier, Roundhead long lost any pejorative meaning that it started out with (as evidenced by the meaning given to it the OED). --PBS (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your boldness is a step too far for me. IMO, roundhead remains a derogatory nickname and is not suitable for an encyclopedia that has a neutral point of view as one of its policies. In addition, someone who does not speak English as their native language is more likely to understand the descriptive phrase "parliamentary supporters in the English civil war" even though it is longer. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Genocide in China
Dear Philip, I have just posted a long critique of the China section of the wiki on "Genocides in history." I am sending you this message because you once questioned the same passage but apparently obtained no satisfactory answer. Congratulations, by the way, for all the edits you have made over the years and for your balanced style as an administrator. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your rapid answer. If you have time, could you also tell me what you think of the wiki called Genocides and Atrocities committed by Manchu chiefdom? Thank you in advance for your advice. Madalibi (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your contributions would again be welcome on this topic, starting with this section from the talk page, which discusses whether we should re-open the China section now that we have found more solid evidence of genocide (in secondary sources, of course). We have even drafted a new paragraph on the extermination of the Dzungars: if you approve of it, I will post it in the next few days. A merry holiday season to you, and thank you for your help! Madalibi (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

New verifiable source for Genocides in history
(1)People's Republic of China

Quote:The Qing Dynasty waged war and genocide against Muslims in the Dungan revolt and Panthay rebellion.[145][146][147] Unquoted.

(2)Quote:During the more than 250 years of the Manchu’s Qing dynasty, the Chinese government waged five wars against Chinese Muslims in which there was much bloodshed. During these rebellions, Muslim groups “could, with justification, fear genocide” (Dillon xix). Indeed,

The low population [of Muslims during the Qing] was a result of the extermination of whole communities…and their replacement by non-Muslim Chinese from other provinces, a policy the Qing and its successor governments were also to put into practice in Xinjiang, Mongolia, and Tibet “ (Dillon 76).Unquoted

http://www.hsais.org/2essay0405_4.htm

Please consider these new verifiable source, and I shall keep it updated as soon as new sources are found.  Arilang  talk  03:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry user PBS, I did not read all the arguments presented by user Madalibi, I have missed out he had already argued against the above sources, my apology.  Arilang  talk  04:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

1st civil war
Hi Philip,

Re the First English Civil War article, me and some other editors are doing a lot of cutting right now. My concern is that the article is far too long, hard to follow and also written in a very old-fashioned style, having been taken from the 1910 Britannica. I've started by removing the Scottish stuff, which, if it contains extra necessary detail, should go in the Scotland in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms page, in my opinion. In all honesty I feel that the 1st ECW page needs a thorough re-write. Hope to hear your thoughts.

Regards,

Jdorney (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Arilang
Hi user PBS, I apologise again for my rude and harsh words towards user Madalibi, I hope he would forgive me. Beside posting my reply on talk page Genocide....chiefdom, I also post my comment on talk page Genocides in history. Please read them when you have time.  Arilang  talk  12:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like my opposition is determined to see that this title cannot be seen under broad daylight. Please move it to my user page for further development. But my argument still is: if I can verify that 'Manchu is barbaric' and 'Manchu had killed a lot of people', what exactly is the reason that I cannot add these two terms together and form an article?  Arilang  talk  02:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Arilang requesting urgent action
Quote: This has nothing to do with being a Manchu apologist or anything like that. I will put up this page for AfD this afternoon. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Unquoted.

I have agreed with your proposal of moving to my user page for further development, looks like user Madalibi is going to do something which is in contrary to your specific instruction. Could you stop him from taking up further action, which is uncalled for?

In my opinion, he needs to explain (1) why he act like an admin when he is not? (2) Why he want to move the article after I have agreed to your proposal (3) the style and his tone and chose of words does not match with the claim that he is a 'new editor', and my suspicion is that he is actually an admin from other wiki, possible an admin from zh:wiki in disguise?  Arilang  talk  05:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * cc to User:Moonriddengirl


 * I am protesting against user Madalibi as he is putting his words into my mouth. Quote:But you have to stick to what your sources say: you cannot use scholarly sources that make points "A" ("the Shaanxi population dropped dramatically in the late 19th century as a result not only of famines and epidemics, but also of wars") and "B" ("before 1911, Sun Yat-sen called the Manchus 'barbarians'" [or "Tartar caitiffs" for da lu 韃虜]) to argue for point "C" ("the Manchu barbarians committed genocide against Shaanxi Muslims"). I'm not arguing that "point C is false": I'm saying that point C is your point, not a point you can find in the scholarly literature you are citing. No matter how reliable your sources ae, if you blend them in this way you are making a (forbidden) synthesis of published material which advances a position:Unquoted.

"point "C" ("the Manchu barbarians committed genocide against Shaanxi Muslims"). I'm not arguing that "point C is false": I'm saying that point C is your point" my answer: point C may be my point, but I have drop the issue of 'genocide' many hours ago, he knows I have dropped it because he knows I have changed the names of the article. Why he is accusing me of something that I no longer fighting for? I therefor like to say that he is not saying the truth, and he is fabricating something, and I am disputing all his claims, or accusations, or whatever it is.  Arilang  talk  05:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * cc to User:Moonriddengirl


 * user PBS, thanks for your help, I shall work out the best way to avoid all these troubles from happening again. Now I know that genocide, massacres, mass killings are all very controversial topics. I will try my best to steer away from these few words, even though at the end of the day, they are all the same, =loss of life. Can I call for your help again next time I got into troubles?  Arilang  talk  11:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Need advice on naming
I am going to create a new article(in a few days time), before I do that I thought I might ask for your opinion first. User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/Literary Holocaust. The new article's name shall be Literary holocaust, a term coined by Fairbank and other co-authors. Please have a look when you have times and point out any short comings. Thanks  Arilang  talk  01:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Layout
Hiya Philip, I just want to reiterate that I don't care so much what the final result is, I just don't want one of the 6 WP:WIAGA pages to have a "disputed" tag for months. Did you get a chance to read those section links? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Followup: I want to be clear that I wasn't lying when I said "I don't care so much what the final result is", even though at the end, I wound up arguing against your position. I did the RFC and made the posts at WP:VPP, WP:SISTER and elsewhere, I looked at the arguments offered by everyone who showed up, and I relied on what I've seen over the last year on style guidelines pages and their talk pages.  After listening to everyone, I thought (and think) there's a consensus for the reasons I gave for not putting links to Wikimedia-run sites (other than Wiktionary) outside of External links.  Although there's no deadline, I take the position that we have to finish up arguments and move on to the next page if we seem to have consensus; the alternative is to get stuck in the mud and let the CAT:GEN pages degrade to uselessness.
 * Nutshell: I opposed your opinion this time, but it doesn't mean that I'll oppose you next time, or that I wasn't listening. Please continue to weigh in at any and all conversations on CAT:GEN talk pages. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

India
Hello, PBS. I am sorry to trouble you, could you possibly spare a moment to look at Talk:British India? We are being asked to agree to a mediation, but (as I have commented there) I do not any need for it. Your input might help. Strawless (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Middle East campaign
Notice: Articles for deletion/Middle East campaign (2nd nomination)

Please note i have nominated the above article for deletion based on the reasons, which can be found in the above link.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Massacres and Atrocities committed by Manchu rulers
An article that you have been involved in editing, Massacres and Atrocities committed by Manchu rulers, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Massacres and Atrocities committed by Manchu rulers. Thank you. Madalibi (talk) 06:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you closed this one a bit too early. Having a running AFD breathing down his neck would have been an incentive for the user to clean up the page. Now they'll just have a POV article sitting in userspace ready for revival on some other title. Please keep a close eye on this and renominate if nothing changes. Also, if you close an AFD, you should use afd t andafd b rather than any poll template. - Mgm|(talk) 10:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk to me
You might be right at WT:Layout; I'm not saying you're not, although the more people I ask, the more convinced I become that there's consensus in the other direction. You're an admin, and you're experienced with style guidelines and with editing practices. You know about the infobox at the top of every guidelines page that says not to make an edit unless you believe it has consensus, so you must believe that most editors share your view on linking wikisource directly from the text. Where do I find these people? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * [copying from my userpage] You have advanced the position that you do not think it constructive to have a disputed banner on a section for months. So you have advanced some wording, I have edited that wording in the spirit of compromise. I have not got all I want and from what you are saying you have not got all you want. But the disputed banner is gone and in the form I have edited section, I get in-line wikisource included. Now we can go back to the version before either of us edited the page, and continue the debate, but are we not closer now to a compromise and hence a consensus with the current wording? --PBS (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're an admin and experienced with style guidelines discussions, so I'll give you the short version. If you don't like the "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus" infobox, then I'd like for you to actively work to change the policy. (I could live with a different policy on consensus or policy on policy, but we've got the ones we've got).  Also, if you believe that you do have consensus on any point of guidelines or policy, but we have posted notices all over the place looking for people who share your view and haven't found any, then instead of simply making the change and sticking us with the burden of finding other people who share your view, I'd like for you to do some of the work. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not usually monitor other peoples talk pages so it is better if you reply on mine.


 * As I said we can go back to an earlier version with the disputed template. Then there will not have been any "Any substantive edit to this page" so we will not have to consider whether they "reflect consensus" or we can try to put in compromise wording. But I am trying to reach a compromise over an issue on which very few editors have expressed an opinion, and which meets most of the concerns of the parties to the conversation. While it probably does not give anyone what the would like, it probably does reflect a working compromise. BTW have you ever edited a page like a treaty or a convention where the text of of the articles to the treaty are intertwined with the commentary on the article? Or is this just an exercise in semantics? -- PBS (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see Kim Bruning's description of how WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD work, while I round up more opinions. (Read my comments there if you want to, but his are more enlightening.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (copied from my talk page) I am familiar with Kim's point of view as a reading of the Consensus archives will show :-) --PBS (talk) 09:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I realize now I was being too legalistic, sorry ... RL and wiki drama to deal with.
 * Even though you understand perfectly well what a reliable source is, my concern is that Joe Q. Reader will click on a wikisource link, and see something that looks like the same kind of thing you'd see on the other end of a reference link, and think, "Hey, this is a reference". More to the point, I'm worried that Wikipedians will worry that Joe Q. Reader will get confused, because the blurring of the bright line separating wiki pages from reliable sources is one of the top ten content issues guaranteed to cause drama.  Can you give me a few pages where you feel you really, really need wikisource links in the text?  I'll hand them to several people and ask them what they think they're getting when they click on the links ... if it's confusing people, then we need to twiddle with the guideline.
 * Another point: the worst thing that can happen in any policy discussion (and sometimes this applies to discussions about guidelines, sometimes not ... it's hard to predict) is for people to think the discussion failed in some way and the end result wasn't what the participants wanted. That not only degrades confidence in the result, it degrades confidence in the whole process, and people start to think that it's not worth their time to even bother participating in policy discussions.  You and I know that you have wide experience, and when you say something looks wrong to you, that's actually reflecting what a lot of people think.  I appreciate the fact that you're not one of the many people who will drag warm bodies into an argument just to prop up your side.  But because you don't do that, I'm afraid that what someone will see from the outside looking in on the discussion at WT:Layout was that we did an RfC and advertised widely, a lot of people showed up, the vote was umpteen to 1, the 1 reverted to the version they liked, and no one challenged it.  Personally, I don't think anything horrible has happened; we're working towards a solution.  But I'm concerned that it gives the impression to the casual passerby, "Why the f*** should I bother to participate in these discussions?" - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm reading up at s:ws:scriptorium; I'm thinking that we can get support for treating wikisource in a different way than other sister links. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

←I now agree that Wikisource should be treated differently. There were some things in my version that people seemed to like, so I reverted back to what I had, except that I'm now saying "except Wikisource" (temporary until we agree on what to do about Wikisource). This might be a stupid question, but what do we need to link to in Commons that isn't in file:-space or media:-space? After reading http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Images_and_other_uploaded_files and other help pages, I can't find any examples of Commons material that requires a link directly to Commons. One difference between my version and yours was that you were happy with putting links to Wikimedia projects in "Further reading", but that section is only for reliable sources. Another small tweak was that I changed the name to "Links to other Wikimedia sites", since we had some grumbling about "sister" and "sibling". For comparison, here is the text you used:
 * Other than Commons, Wiktionary and Wikisource, links to Wikimedia sister projects, including Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikiquote, Wikispecies and Wikiversity, should not appear outside of Further reading or External links sections (create the section if needed). The appropriateness of these and other external links is discussed at External links. Images and other media hosted at Commons are not covered by this restriction. Links to Wiktionary (in the format word or word ) may be used outside of External links when a definition is needed for clarity and when there is no Wikipedia article which would serve the purpose just as well. See also WP:Explain jargon and the policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. In-line links to Wikisource may be used outside of External links when they will alleviate the need for quoting the original text in a Wikipedia article.
 * - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See also: WT:Good_article_nominations and WT:FAC. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Roundheads vs. Supporters of parliment
It's not clear to me that this category rename has consensus support. Perhaps it would be wise to run it through Categories for discussion. - Stepheng3 (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That was the first place I looked, and I didn't see consensus, only debate. - Stepheng3 (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong opinion about the category name. My main concern is the process that was used to rename it. - Stepheng3 (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

British India again
Hi Philip, How do I access the editing history of the old page "British India," from its creation to its replacement by "Provinces of India?" What I see in the editing history of the current "British India" page is really the past editing history of "Provinces of India." Thanks. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  12:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please ignore my question. I found it!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

reliable sources
"Some people were using raw Google searches to override what reliable sources said." The problem with that is that it arguably invalidates the google test, for there is no way to filter out "reliable source" from "unreliable sources", unless the intent is say the test should be limited to google books. I think the clause creates far more problems than it resolves. After all, articles have been successfully named for years without that clause, but I've seen it used only to defend relatively obscure names. I'm curious as to what the original conflict was that created the debate that resulted in this change. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Another example of how that statement causes more problems than it solves:


 * PBS has yet to produce even a single counterexample to my claim that reliable sources for "most commonly used name" simply do not exist - so any guideline requiring such is inherently un-implementable [1]

Note that that argument could be made for almost every article named in Wikipedia. The requirement to use "reliable sources" in choosing the most commonly used name for a given topic -- something for which there is very little work done on -- is absurd on its face. Source for article content is one thing. Sourcing for determining "most commonly used name" is quite another. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion would be welcomed
Hi Philip, I made a proposal on the talk page of "Pontic Greek genocide" to rename the article as "Greek genocide" or "Ottoman Greek genocide" to reflect more accurately the content featured and also to bring terminology to a more consistent level with western scholars. Your comments, for or against, would be appreciated when you have time as you have been taking care of the article for some time. Best. Bebek101 (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Parliamentary supporters in the English Civil War
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Parliamentary supporters in the English Civil War, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Parliamentary supporters in the English Civil War has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Parliamentary supporters in the English Civil War, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going out to get popcorn
and soda.--Xenovatis (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

new development
The changes are being proposed by editing here, please make your bold edits at that page. Ta, cygnis insignis 13:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions reversion
I reverted your edit. Please discuss it on the talk page first. --KP Botany (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you want to pinpoint the lines that agree to these changes? Or are you saying that since you discussed something and no one said anything you took that as consensus?  There's clearly NO consensus to change the policy right now.  Your change doesn't even make sense particularly since it contradicts what you seem to be saying.  --KP Botany (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's see, here is what the policy says:
 * "Article naming for flora articles differs from the standard Tree of Life policy in the following ways: "
 * And here's your change:
 * "The naming of flora articles has special difficulties, but is in general compatible with naming policy and the standard Tree of Life project. "
 * And it seems that you were one of the ones saying the problem with the policy is it doesn't agree with policy. (I could be wrong, there are SO MANY WORDS that who could find any specific ones.)  It's also wordy in a way that serves no purpose to the general reader of a policy, say what the policy is, don't allude to unrelated things.  If it's compatible with TOL, then just link to TOL policy.  If it's not, say how it's not.
 * Discussing this is insane. People want to dictate policy to the editors who volunteer to write plant articles.  I really didn't enjoy being put down for how I write my articles with that attitude that another editor would be a slave driver and dictate how I contribute or be allowed to insult my contributions.  So, why not just post your suggested change and get agreement??  --KP Botany (talk) 11:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop making changes to WP:NC (flora) on your own. You're being being disruptive to make a point. Someone with your experience ought to know better. --Jwinius (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

"Terrorist"
I hope you'll work with me on this; we've had discussions for a while now on the fact that the discussion on controversial words (terrorist, martyr, etc.) has been the "thing that ate WP:Words to avoid" for the past couple of years. It's become an impediment to watchlisting that very important style guideline, one of just 6 mentioned at WP:WIAGA, and one that's used a lot at WP:GAN, WP:GAR and WP:FAC. The current threads ended on Dec 18. Sarah77 made a post on the subject today. I didn't get any objections to my suggestion, so I took the liberty of moving her message to a new home where I hope it will be happy, WT:Controversial articles. That's also a guideline, so it's not a "demotion" of the subject, just an attempt to split discussions on controversial words away from the rest of WP:Avoid. I also broke the Words with controversial or multiple meanings section up into Words with multiple meanings, which stayed at WP:Words to avoid, and Words with controversial meanings, which I created as a section at WP:Controversial articles, with a single (for the moment) subsection of Extremist, terrorist or freedom fighter?. I also moved the two shortcuts, WP:Terrorist and WP:Extremist. (Watchlisting a few days.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A quick note on my moving the "terrorist" subsection somewhat precipitously (24 hours notice, no responses): my main goal was not to interrupt any ongoing conversation, and we had finally reached a long stretch (12 days) with no messages. Wherever the terrorism discussion is, I didn't want to break the flow.  I do believe consensus exists, and if it doesn't, I'll happily move it back. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice
A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to review

 * This conversation relates to PBS's request to delete the Congo Free State Genocide

I merged the Congo Free State articles into Congo Free State

If there are any further issues, let me know. TPaineTX (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

content house
You wrote: "Now that I've show than the naming conventions are semi-detached policy from the three polices that go to make up the content house. Do you still hold the same position?"

Aren't you the one who linked WP:COMMONNAME with the "content house" by referencing WP:SOURCES in the guideline? The criteria for establishing reliability of information for the purpose of providing article content, the topic of WP:SOURCES, is very different from the criteria that the "reliable sources" need to meet when seeing what name is most commonly used in the vernacular to refer to a given topic. It's apples and oranges, and it's very confusing to reference [{WP:SOURCES]] at WP:COMMONNAME. That's not semi-detached, that's attached at the hip. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree party wall is a better analogy, and so semi-detached is good terminology. However, so far as I know, most party walls do not sport holes that residents on one side can use to reach through the wall to the other side to grab a pint from their neighbor's kitchen counter.  It's a wall.  The link to WP:SOURCES from the common name policy page is a hole in that wall.  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"We have enough on our plates with WP:NC without opening up another area of dispute, which for 95%+ of the time is of little relevance because the common name in reliable sources and all internet sources are the same. " On this point we can agree to disagree. Even accepting your estimate (and I think it might easily be less than 95%, perhaps much less than 95%), this issue is relevant to perhaps as many as 1 out of every 20 articles, probably much more if you only count those likely to show up at WP:RM (whose titles are not stable). Rest assured I will remind you every time it creates a problem, and I hope you remember to leave me a note on the rare occasion it might be used effectively to counter someone's odd claims of common usage whose primary language is not English (or whatever problem this clause was originally intended to solve). Not to mention that my open question on the common name talk page stands unanswered... (last I checked). --Born2cycle (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question. An additional point to the above... the problem created by the "reliable sources" wording in the CN guideline of course extends to every single article about a plant whose name is not the scientific Latin name. Perhaps the line between what is the most common name in the English vernacular and what is the most common name in "reliable sources" is clear to you, but pardon me if I seriously doubt that. Trying to draw that distinction ("ah, yes, that may be the most common name, but not in 'reliable sources'") is simply asking for trouble. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Tasmanian genocide
I am not particularly knowledgable about the details of Tasmanian history, I just knew the broad outlines. Nevertheless, I am positive that I am not misrepresenting the current academic consensus regarding that event. With this sort of stuff, the encyclopedia should be as careful as possible to represent academic consensus, and to label fringe views as such. If you feel the need to block editing, please try to keep the version as reasonable as possible, after reading some academic sources.Likebox (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please search for "Tasmanian Genocide". The events on mainland Australia are not as clear cut a case of genocide.Likebox (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Middle East campaign AfD
I see no reason to reconsider my decision. The outcome of the AfD was clear, lack of notification to you (while regrettable) notwithstanding, and the outcome was to "move and redirect," which I reasonably interpret as merge. — kur  ykh   22:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, you were notified. Look above. — kur  ykh   22:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The decision of the debate stands, your non-participation notwithstanding. — kur  ykh   22:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Bosnian mujahideen edit/revert restrictions
Hi, if I remember correctly, the edit/revert restrictions you placed on the article have expired but I can't seem to find the info. Could you pls remind me.Osli73 (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk page message
Hi, Philip. I've left a message for you at Talk:Genocide.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive 4.
In the talk page for WP:NOR you say: "Fullstop if you want more of an answer then read my comments on this talk page and in the archives starting on this issue in Archive 4." I couldn't find anything by PBS n archive 4 and I did wish to see what you had said. Minasbeede (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

former eastern territories of Germany
Hi, it seems I was a bit angry for no real reason here. The current state of the intro is of course alright with me, although some more sources would still be fine.Regards, Yaan (talk) 11:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources
The argument presented would have been presented a year ago without the word reliable: "PBS has yet to produce even a single counterexample to my claim that reliable sources for "most commonly used name" simply do not exist - so any guideline requiring such is inherently un-implementable" -- so no change there then. -- PBS (talk) 09:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No way. Simply linking to WP:SOURCES brings along all kinds of baggage that should not apply to article naming, like WP:NOR.  Certainly sources need to be consulted in order to determine how various names are used to refer to what topics, but by using the name "reliable" and linking to WP:SOURCES the implication is made that we're not looking at mere usage, but we're looking for actual determinations and clear declarations that state what the "most commonly used name" is for a given topic.  That's what doesn't exist out there, and the only reason these people can claim that that's what we should be looking for (even though it doesn't exist) is because of the clause in question.  I mean, look at the changes that you added.  For years, the paragraph in question simply said:


 * When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?


 * It was your changes that added this in front of it: "Determine the common name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject. " Yes, literally, it says by seeing what sources call the subject.  But because of the link to WP:SOURCES, and the use of the term verifiable reliable sources, the impression is made that what must be found are sources that state what the most commonly used name is.  That's how it is interpreted, and that's why they think it's even relevant to declare that "sources for 'most commonly used name' simply do not exist".  Without your clause there would not even be a reason to say that.  The adjective reliable is almost beside the point. As long as that statement remains in the guideline, I guarantee you that people will continue to use it as an excuse to ignore the common names guideline.  The only question is how many times will you have to run into this to realize it is true.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Another example of the reliable sources reference biting you, from the Big Ben controversy: "No consensus was reached concerning appropriate application of the policy of WP:Use Common Names as there was no common name found to be used by reliable sources. "  (my emphasis) Here again the phrase "reliable sources" is naturally assumed to mean what is understood when used  to provide factual basis for article content. No such definitive basis in reliable sources can be found to support any naming of the clock tower in question (or just about any topic in Wikipedia), and so those in support of the status quo get to make this argument. The statement has to go, Philip. How many times do you need to be bitten by it before you realize it causes far more problems than it solves? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"So although we use the same sources to see what something should be called, the weighting that types of reliable sources should be given differs. " That's great Philip, except is there anyone else besides you and me who makes this distinction when they interpret that part of the common name guideline? I know of not a single other person. Everyone else -- especially when it suits their position -- uses a much more literal interpretation without this distinction at all. That wording must go. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well shit; I know I do. No wait, I do the opposite to what you do: I give the most reliable sources for the topic more weight than the unreliable sources. Shock horror! But seriously, you do Philip a grave disservice when you suggest that he shares your fruitcake idea that blogs and random webpages are more reliable than journal articles. No, you are completely alone there. Hesperian 06:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia naming conventions for organisms
Philip, sorry for the spam, as I'm sure you've read it elsewhere:

I suggest that Wikipedia should change its naming conventions for organism articles to require scientific names, and this suggestion should be discussed fully at Wikipedia naming conventions. --KP Botany (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Bosniak
Hi, I notice that a number of the Bosniak editors are rallying each other to 'defend' 'their' articles: see this recent entry. Is that allowed? Appropriate?Osli73 (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I also noticed User Osli73 deleted introduction in Bosnian war, deleted 7th Muslim Brigade, redirected it to Bosnian Mujahideen, created another redirection called 7th Muslim Mountain Brigade (just added a new word Mountain) in order to Decieve community. Yes, I was trying to find either administrator, or some Bosniak user in order to protect this destruction, because Bosniak users are familiar with Bosniak topics, which is logical. Is Osli destruction allowed? Appropriate? Historičar (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Diruption warning
Stop disrupting Wikipedia by continuing to ignore requests to provide verifiable reliable resources to support your argument then hounding me to tell you over and over again that you still continue to fail to provide the information. You are willfully, maliciously, and purposefully misinterpreting existing policy and ignoring the words of existing policy in order to disrupt editing of plant articles. --KP Botany (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll be working on an RfC and will invite other editors to do so with the intention of having your disruption of Wikipedia stopped. User:KP Botany/RfC PBS --KP Botany (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your repeatedly editing a guideline page without the consensus of other editors is disruptive editing. I have reverted your edit.  Consider this your second warning.  I will request that you be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you continue to disrupt editors.
 * You might want to read this as it describes perfectly your behaviour as a Wikipedia editor with your attempt to single-handedly create a change only you support. --KP Botany (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your reversion to the policy page has again been reverted. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia by continuing to revert against the consensus of the community.  I will now ask that you be blocked from editing or that this page be reverted and edit protected.  --KP Botany (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Appliqué armour


Hi. I reverted your edit, because I don't see any appliqué armour in the Warrior photo (it is not the same as spaced armour skirts, although sometimes an appliqué kit can include both). We already have a photo of a Stug showing skirts.

I don't care how many T-34 photos there are or aren't, but we should have clear examples. Another option is a KV-1 with bolted-on appliqué. —Michael Z. 2009-02-07 20:16 z 

Achtung
I can think of a lot of schoolboys who don't. Are you being a little eurocentric? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Many English-speaking people might recognize "Achtung," but (conservatively) at least 3/4 of Americans wouldn't. And of those who even recognize the word, about half would wonder why the bombers were dropping U2 CD's. Lest you think I'm kidding, (conservatively) at least half wouldn't even know what "Sieg Heil" means, and of those who knew at least a third would be skinheads. Seriously.
 * It's the same as if we were quoting Victor Hugo - many people might understand the original French, but the right thing to do would be to quote the translated words. This is, after all, English-speaking (and American-speaking) WP rather than German WP.
 * Last but not least, a misplaced reductio ad absurdum - Taylor can't have been quoting the actual words that came over the loudspeaker. He takes for granted that people would recognize the word "Achtung," so he includes it and translates the rest. Most of his readers, being WWII buffs, would recognize it - but most of our readers, being kids in school writing their reports, wouldn't even know who U2 is. arimareiji (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Some years ago in New York City, I tried to joke with our local delivery driver that there was a job that didn't get shipped out, so he would need to take it to Vancouver. Quoth he, "Okay, do you know how far it is?" When I realized he was serious, I said "You know, Vancouver... in British Columbia... in Canada... on the opposite coast, by the Pacific Ocean..." He continued staring at me blankly through these long pauses, and finally asked "Yeah, but how long will it take me to get there?"
 * It's possible to underestimate the cultural awareness of Joe American. But it's really, really difficult. arimareiji (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Philip, it would be far better if you defended your use of German here rather than in edit summaries. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There are two of us who disagree with your use of German, and we've both left comments here. You've reverted both of our edits without engaging in debate outside of an edit summary. It's not sufficient. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm in favour of translating the German portion of the quote into English, yes. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm confident that a majority of English speakers worldwide don't know what "Achtung" means, and that you are being highly Anglocentric here. I don't understand the fuss; if the quote was from a book written in German there wouldn't be an issue with translating the whole sentence. I'm not "altering wording" or paraphrasing; I'm translating from German into English. I'm not that bothered about it, but I am annoyed that you reverted (twice) without making any substantive effort to defend the edit. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Osli73
What's up? Can you stop Osli73 from using IPsocks: User:79.102.103.78 & User:212.73.169.196, or if you could tell me how to start official request or smth? thanks! Historičar (talk) 09:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Greek genocide
Hi PBS! As you noticed, I backed away and I let you do whatever you wanted to the article. I came back to remove the tag once, and I invite you, as a third party, to reinstate it with your own reasoning. After all, this tag disputes the text you (mostly) wrote, and which was stable for months, without any "partizan" interference from my part... I'll be watching from time to time, but I insist in my decision of abstaining from editing there. Best of luck, and goodbye (again)! NikoSilver 17:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hector MacLean, 5th Lord of Duart
Did you get any further in clearing up 600 years of name recycling to find if Hector MacLean, 5th Lord of Duart and the name of his father and children are the correct ones? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheers
Hi, thank's for helping out with the 'legalities' of the process. Sorry, I haven't replied, I've been out travelling and logging in through the mobile phone is a bit difficult (not to say expensive when you're abroad). As I wrote earlier, I'm sorry I reacted so childishly, but I felt provoked. Frankly, I'm tired of the constant fighting with editors who are driven by nationalist agendas rather than by rational arguments. I will let them have 'their' articles and focus on Swedish Wikipedia or something else. I should have done so a long time ago but I've never liked being bullied... Just as in politics vocal, persistent and well organized minorities are able to dominate marginal issues. All the best. CheersOsli73 (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"Revision"ism and Dresden
I really object strongly to this coded attack on me. You refered to my "Revision". I personally do not like the bombing of Dresden. That doesn't make me some sort of a nazi. You are on the other side who obviously applaud this act. You also agree with the way the article is at the moment implying that Harris is entirely responsible and that Churchill "distances himself" from it. You are not the only one who uses this "below the belt" coded name calling to kill off their opposition. Wallie (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. It does seem that anyone who challenges the usual view that it was an excellent blow against an evil enemy is called a "revisionist". I guess we will remain on opposite sides on this debate. You will probably win, as most think the way you do. Wallie (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on Naming conventions (flora)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --KP Botany (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have posted about this at WP:AN/I. Go play there for a month or two. --KP Botany (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You have contradicted the spirit, or are actually guilty of, 3RR at the naming conventions. Edit warring is an accurate characterization of your approach. Your history of editing, despite its ultimately negligible influence on policy formation, is a poor example for a supposedly trusted user. You ought to lift your game. cygnis insignis 14:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppets?
Hi Philip, Could you please take a look at Talk:British_India? Thanks. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  04:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have moved the post to this subpage of my user page, where I'm compiling some stats as well.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I take it you heard about the resolution (if not, please see my talk page). I'm amazed that one person can create such believable personalities, have them talk in different tones of voice, and show different levels of expertise.  This episode has made me a little somber too at all the time and energy wasted by all sides.  (I especially remember Strawless saying that he was an elderly person, and I felt guilty afterwards.)  Anyway thanks for sticking with it and remaining neutral.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied on talk.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 02:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sir Lachlan Mor Maclean
Where is the rule for removing the Sir if he isn't a baron? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

List of sovereign states
The list of countries originally entitled List of countries was a clear attempt to create a noncontroversial and nonpolitical list of countries in the geographic sense as defined by three respected sources. The list was not an attempt to circumvent or slight the List of sovereign states which is the definitive list of political states. I realize that there has been much controversy over what constitutes a country or nation, but to adopt a single political definition defies the very basis of what Wikipedia stands for. Surely there is some place we can put a list of geographic countries and not have it deleted by those who insist upon a single political definition. What do you suggest? Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible sock puppetry
I have never done this before, so I believe I may need some help on the procedure. See one year timetable and further on this. User:Wareh would be the puppetmaster. I'll look for your reply back HERE. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell talk 23:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If a CheckUser could be done for Wareh and RandomCritic it will show that BOTH are in the United States in the EasternTime Zone. It will also show the same thing that my time table chart is showing for their edits, that basically when one edits several times the other "rests." This is shown in the way the numbers flip-flop in the edit counts under their names. Also several times they are off exactly the same days (2, 3, or 4) several times throughout the year, which would be impossible to happen if one weres in the U.S. and the other in England. This alone shows it is just one person with two "personalities" editing different style articles. They edit however some common articles related to Renaissance and Medieval. The question is, how is it that when one edits then the other takes the day off. This has happened several times! According to the conversation they left me they "never heard of him (or her) before" denying they never heard of each other until I brought it up. My timetable proves otherwise, unless there are several coincidences that could happen between two strangers in two different parts of the world throughout a year year period. Greater than a million to one odds. Could a UserCheck be done? It will prove beyond a doubt what I am saying and showing on my timetable of their contributions - these two "personalities" are really just one person.--Doug Coldwell talk 12:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See post FORWARD at User talk:Cool Hand Luke. Thanks for reply. --Doug Coldwell talk 13:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CHL recommended that I have better evidence of actual abuse (like edit warring together, tag teaming, or something similar), then it might be suggestive enough to checkuser. "Right now, I don't think there's much here." So, right now I am going to sit on it until I have better evidence. I'll let you know if anything comes later. --Doug Coldwell talk 19:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: Agree with CHL that I need to have strong evidence like edit warring together, tag teaming, or something similar to be convincing. I am not sure if that will happen in the future, however if it does then I will have the evidence needed. Meanwhile, personally I am convinced it is one person -OR- two people that know each other (i.e. husband and wife, father and son) and are on the same IP address. According to Wareh and RandomCritic they do not know each other and never heard of each other until I brought it up in April of 2007. The reason I believe this is that too many times, per my timetable chart, they flip-flop as to who edits a certain day while the other "rests." Then soon (i.e. next day) they reverse roles. The table of their contributions shows the "resting" person at zero and then it flip-flops (again zero). If I were to plot out in a timetable chart myself and CHL for the same time period, you would not see evidence of flip-flopping like this. It would be much more random with most days of several edits (i.e. dozens) since we are both active editors. You would not see one go to zero (or one edit) while the other has dozens of edits that day and a day or two later our roles reversed - then a day or two later the roles reversed again. Just showing you my arguement, that it could be a father and son - or just one person. Now to prove this further, BOTH Wareh and RandomCritic disappeared on March 1 (2009). My bet is that when they return, they will BOTH return on the same day. The odds on that, IF they are entirely two different people (strangers to each other) in two entirely different locations, is a million to one. IF they happen to return on the same day (my bet), how could I have predicted that unless I see they are the same person -OR- two closely related people (father and son). They are quite adamant about not knowing each other. I'll report back to you my findings later, when "they" show up. --Doug Coldwell talk 00:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Further additional comment: so far neither have returned on the scene. I still predict that when "they" return it will be on the same day. Interesting note is that they BOTH know Latin - they have admitted themselves. On 24 January 2007 Wareh edited Dog Latin where RandomCritic edited that article the day before and the next two days later. Wareh's edit is right in the middle of RandomCritic's edits. In April of 2007 (3 months later) they adamantly denied knowing each other. Obviously they knew each other already in January since they are editing the same article of Latin. They modified each other's edits in Latin from 24 January to 25 January with detailed references involved. RandomCritic continued making Latin changes on 26 January and made edits dates after that. On 18 April 2007 RandomCritic said "I have never heard of him (or her) before; and I have no connection with him or her." That's hard for me to believe since he changed Wareh's Latin wording on 25 Janusry 2007, some 3 months earlier. Let's sit with this for now and see when "they" show up, which my bet is will be the same day sometime between now and March 15. --Doug Coldwell talk 00:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: I have thought further on this and have come to the same conclusion as CHL's recommendation, that I need strong evidence to make a case in some form of current edit warring together, tag teaming, or something similar. The last encounters I have had with Wareh and RandomCritic was back in 2007, so that makes it a cold case. Personally I believe it is one person -OR- a father and son operating from the same household under the same IP address. Even if I could prove it is father and son, at this point I don't think I would have a case. Thanks for listening to me - it helped a lot. Will let you know if anything exciting happens in a sockpuppet or meatpuppet case. --Doug Coldwell talk 13:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * One more comment on RandomCritic and Wareh. One additional possibility that these "two" people could be, besides a father and son, is adult brothers. They obviously know each other because they BOTH came back from vacation within 48 hours of each other (pretty much as I predicted they would). They are operating on the same IP address in the same household and I believe the same computer since no times of editing are even close to each other. There are no exact editing times in the contributions for the time period of the timetable I made. They both know Latin very well! Wareh came back on March 5 and 6 - then stopped editing. RandomCritic then edited March 7 and 8. They both stopped editing today. All these factors are way beyond just being "coincidental." They are NOT strangers to each other in entirely different locations on entirely different computers. However, after all this being said and these discoveries there is still no case until I have what CHL recommends as some form of current edit warring together, tag teaming, or something similar. I believe something will come up on this later, as many times they edit on the same articles (especially pertaining to Renaissance and Medieval items) AND of course Latin articles.--Doug Coldwell talk 22:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Maclean
I am getting the feeling the the Maclean clan website is full of errors, they have dates of ascension mixed up with dates of birth. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry, Philip, I didn't see your post on Talk:Provinces of India. The page went off my watchlist. (It seems that I've been using a window-width in which the "my watchlist" and the "watch" tabs are so close to each other that each gets chosen (accidentally) when the other is intended.) Will reply soon. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  15:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk:Presidencies_and_provinces_of_British_India. Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names, a procedure has been developed at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahmednagar fort
Hi. I've nominated Ahmednagar fort, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Belasd (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ahmednagar Fort
--Dravecky (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sir Hector Maclean, 2nd Baronet
Can you peek at this ancestor chart and see if I have spouses or generations mixed up. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Table of country-related information
Hi,

Thought you might be interested, User:Buaidh has once again recreated his list of countries, this time at Table of country-related information. I thought I'd see what you thought rather than reverting straight off at this stage because he's now using a title that implies that the article's purpose is navigational - but almost all of my issues with the previous list remain. Pfainuk talk 18:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Something entirely unrelated, a user came to my talk under the mistaken impression that I am an admin, asking for a redirect to be deleted to make way for a move - specifically, from Shaka to Shaka kaSenzangakhona per consensus at Talk:Shaka. Do you mind taking a look and deleting the redirect (or moving the article over the redirect) if you think there's sufficient consensus? Thanks, Pfainuk talk 10:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I confess and apologize. I'm sorry if any of my activities disrupted anyone's tranquility.  I honestly see no way that any of my hyperlink tables infringe upon the List of sovereign states or any other article of which I am aware.


 * I don't understand why this issue of countries/nations/states/stateless nations/sovereign states/dependent states/self-governing states/non-self-governing states has not been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries rather than among a small clique of editors. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.  I had a pretty good idea of what a country was at age five, but it seems that many people can debate this question for a lifetime.  Your aye, Buaidh (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My primary concern is that we have let the debate over the definition of countries-and-their-ilk damage the utility of Wikipedia for school children and less sophisticated users. Devolution in the UK need not take the rest of the world hostage.  I love the List of sovereign states, but I feel that it may be a bit too pedantic for the casual user.  --Buaidh (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the repair!
I must have clicked on a help link in the talk page's archive box! My apologies, and thanks for fixing the mess. I wondered how the See also section found its way to the archive. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Teitur Thordarson
You gotta be kidding with that warning on my talk page. There is neither wheel warring nor infraction whatsoever. Aervanath revoked his own closure of the move proposal, so moving the article back is only logical. Furthermore, Aervanath himself agreed to this here; and even if he hadn't agreed it would still be perfectly valid for me to move back. Next time please investigate before dropping block warnings, as this behavior is hardly befitting of an admin. Thanks. Hús ö  nd  19:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not? How would it be a wheel war if no administrative action would be reverted? As far as I know, it would be merely a move war. No big deal, and certainly not worthy of block threats. Hús  ö  nd  19:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why the previous editor has got his knickers in a knot over this minor article that should not even exist on the English language wikipedia.--Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Bosnian Genocide
Hi, Just wanted to see why have you deleted the Bosnia section which I put. It's a shame that the Bosnian Genocide is not mentioned here. Best, Hicmet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hicmet (talk • contribs) 22:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Eritrean-Ethiopian War
After you left me a message, I just wanted to clear things up. First of all, look at the casualties in the Infobox, and you will see I was just repeating them. Unless you can contradict the claims made by the Infobox which I used, either with references or a consensus, you have no right to challenge me over this.

RFC regarding WP:TERRORIST
Hi: You're probably watching the WT:WTA talk page, but if not, I wanted to let you know I've set up an RFC to get some outside discussion there, and to encourage slightly more formal statements than our more freewheeling discussion thus far. Ray Talk 17:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Semantics
I know this is just semantics, but I'm just curious where I went wrong. In my usage, this is a citation: If I make a list of these things, I have a list of citations, don't I? I'm not sure I understand how to determine when this is just a "source" and not a "citation".

In my usage, the word "source" (while ambiguous) tends to refer to the book, and the word "citation" tends to refer to the name of the book, appearing in a special format in an article. I've just used this (possibly) erroneous point of view to improve WP:CITE, and I want to fix it if I'm wrong. CharlesGillingham (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see. You're coming from the point of view of "usage on Wikipedia." That makes more sense. I think that "list of sources", "list of references" and "list of citations" are all technically correct ways to refer the list at the end of the article, but I think there is an advantage in other places in the article to be careful to respect the distinction between "name of the book" (by calling it a "citation") and "the book" (by calling it a "source"). CharlesGillingham (talk) 11:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * For example: If I say "the citation is bad", I'm usually referring to a line of text in the article. Maybe it's badly formatted or the link is dead. If I say "the source is bad", I'm usually referring to the actual book. Maybe it's poorly written or the author is an idiot.


 * Again, this is just semantics, and any intelligent reader should automatically know what we're really talking about, regardless of which of these ambiguous words we choose. This is not an important issue. (That's the reason I mention it here, rather than at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, where this kind of discussion would get ridiculous really quickly.)


 * The only sentences where it gets sticky are ones where you are talking about both the book and the line of text, such as the first sentence in the guideline. You don't want to say "a reference is a reference to a reference". ;)  CharlesGillingham (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing policy draft
Hi, I drafted a restructuring of the Editing Policy (User:Rd232/EPmock), which you recently touched on at Wikipedia talk:Editing policy. Pls comment there. cheers, Rd232 talk 17:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

52nd Foot
Thanks for your additions to 52nd (Oxfordshire) Regiment of Foot: it's nice to see others contribute to articles I've worked on. I've been meaning to add a bit more of Leeke's Waterloo history for a while. Parry seems to have relied on his account more than many historians (who tend to stick to the official dispatches which, strangely, don't mention the 52nd at all). Gwinva (talk) 09:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks for copy editing my post.
Thank you. Have a juicy sweet Mulberry

from (Off2riorob (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

F. Toben.
Hi Philip. I see you are after removing the "holocaust denier" accusation, I agree with you. Then It should also be looked at the "list" of "deniers" where Tolben is named. This should also be removed. best regards from rob. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

Bombing of Bremen in World War II
I came across this article and was thinking of cleaning up some formatting (use of bold, section structure but I see its edit protected. I guess from the edit log that you and Mugs2109 weren't seeing eye-to-eye on matters. Is this resolved yet? GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * On a related note, rather than the editing style of Mugs2109 getting to me, I have decided for the interim to unwatch the pages where they are active. I am still around if there is a particular issue you'd like my opinion on. Its unfortunately one of these areas where there is only a couple of editors involved and things end up getting batted back and forth with no real feel of progress. Their uncommunicative style doesn't help but better to walk away then let it get to you - a piece of advice I picked up off reading the RFC and wikiquette section. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Editing basis Denial of the Armenian Genocide
"Added genocide scholars, as most people would not be able to find Turkey on a map and most governments do not acknowledge it as a genocide, but we have a source for genocide scholars" There are facts about Alpha Centuri, and I doubt people could find it in the sky. Governments ignore Alpha Centuri, as well. Here is the question that you might find sources for: Of all the governments that have addressed the AG-recognition question, how many have voted yes/no? You can ask the same questions about individuals and the opinions they hold. Then, edit against the consensus of the page with authority! COYW (talk) 09:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Child Soldiers
Well done with. I was a bit stumped by disappearing references but the new ones are good. Thanks.--BozMo talk 20:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

List of regicides of Charles I
Thanks for sorting out the tricky footnote quote. I knew there was a problem but had to rely on greater experience coming along. I'm reluctant to revisit the orthographic consistency but am curious as to why you preferred to reintroduce the date-style disparity of eg, 11 September 1664 vs Thursday 19 October 1660, and why, say, commissioner and king (as a common noun) should be reverted to a cap. initial while baronets, knights, generals, colonels, etc, correctly remain as lower-case. New Hart's Rules states at page 96 "Words for titles and ranks are generally lower case unless they are used before a name, as a name, or in forms of address&mdash;'Tony Blair the prime minister', but 'Prime Minister, Tony Blair' [ignoring the anachronism :)]. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I accept your argument about the usage of Michael Kirby and, in fact, the Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors also allows the King when referring to a particular king. I agree this can be stretched to Commissioners in this particular context. There is no doubt about capitalising the Queen (present incumbent), who is one of a number of historical queens of England. Likewise, Blair was one of a number of prime ministers and Prince Philip is one of several princes of the realm. He might sometimes be called the Prince but never a Prince (the latter clearly denoting a common noun). Prime Minister, incidentally, is definitely a title and only incidentally a 'job description' (as are most titles). Brown is the Prime Minister of the UK; Blair is a former prime minister. If we insist on citations for our statements, we need to do likewise for consistency in written English. The most reliable references for this are Hart's Rules and its companion volume, the Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors, to which I have referred. I think we will agree, however, that the 'rules' are flexible enough to allow some intelligent variation. :) Cheers Bjenks (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

User problem
Hello, as you may have noticed I'm having difficulties with explaining the purpose of an article to the user:Meowy. At first I was rather optimistic that we could reach a compromise; but it seems this user has a different purpose and only wishes to impose their view and accepts no compromise/discussion on the topic whatsoever but instead just tears apart anything opposing his/her views.

As I'm rather inexperienced with the procedures, what would you suggest I do? Or should I leave this into the hands of moderators/admins in some way?

Kind regards.Joebobby1985 (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Terror bombing
Hi Philip. I’ve made a comment in the AN/I dispute between Dapi89 and Kurfürst over their issues in the article on Terror bombing to the effect that I believe the article is very problematic in its current state and that I believe you are on track with your suggestion of gutting it and rewriting it. It’s not something I have time to participate in, but I’m willing be "on call" to serve as a voice of reason and neutral opinion, if need be. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, most of the reverts you made were fine; I hadn't spotted a couple of inline wikilinks, and I can live with the (ugly) notes section, but I do think a See also to Shock and awe would be useful for the reader, as terror bombing falls under Shock_and_awe. A link from Shock and awe back to Terror bombing would also make sense, but you reverted that too. I recognise that my timing is bad due to the AN/I dispute (which made me look at the article) so you're on alert for POV edits, but I was just trying to link together some related articles. Fences and windows (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"no secondary links on a dab line"
Hi! Is this a Wikipedia guideline? I'm not familiar with it. Thanks! Kenshin (talk) 09:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It helped, thanks! Kenshin (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Not relevant?!
I was right, you don't consider the eradication of the native peoples from the Americas by the European invaders to qualify as genocide. That edit summary tipped your hand. Unbelievable. Where can I request that you be stripped of your admin bit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.246.237 (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: WP:RM
I would be delighted to automate the requested move process. I think there will be more support for bringing in the RFC bot, since I have taken it upon myself to make the process immensely easier. I could probably develop a fork of the RFC bot that deals with requested moves, making it work in the same sort of way. Now, would the list of requested moves need to be divided up (by say, category or date), or would they all be on the same list? &mdash;harej 20:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So it appears that Requested Moves was successfully migrated to the RFC bot. What are your thoughts? &mdash;harej (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

List of digital library projects
This is just a quick note that the a page you've commented on before List of digital library projects is undergoing discussion over a rewrite at Talk:List_of_digital_library_projects. The rewrite is at Stuartyeates (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphan pages/Alexis Grace
Thank you for moving the page! Pet Peeve of mine when people's names aren't capitalized in titles. As far as the orphan page you mentioned, if you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Orphan#Suggestions_for_how_to_de-orphan_an_article you will see a link to UntaggedOrphans which gathers pages that meet the criteria for orphan status. While I agree with you on principle, if the articles show up there, then I am taking their word that it meets wiki criteria for orphan status. I will continue to tag them orphan until the criteria changes - and that is out of my hands! Postcard Cathy (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Genocide business
The genocide section needs to read properly--- the debate section is badly sourced, and misrepresents nearly all the academic literature on the Tasmanian genocide. So I fixed it. If you want to revert to a previous badly sourced version (which includes less information, and has serious undue weight issues), please have the courtesy to explain the changes in detail.Likebox (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Instead of asking for a block, it would be nice if you could discuss the changes.Likebox (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Dapi89 gearing up for another edit war
I would like you to review the latest contributions of Dapi89. He spent the last few hours reverting my 'false/falsified' edits in various articles, appearantly systematically going through them; in addition, he tries to convert other editors to his 'cause' on their talk pages, and adds comments on the article discussion pages that certainly not going to help. This will only lead to another edit war, and I wish to avoid that, but there are limits of my patience, too. Dapi89 is actively seeking an edit war with for a long time, and I wish this would finally end. Kurfürst (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Phil, I don't believe you're stupid enough to believe this nonsense. Just follow my edit history, it makes more than enough sense. Dapi89 (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * and the title above is another indication of a string of NPOV violations by this individual. Dapi89 (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Just read his recent edits - especially this one. The pattern is rather clear IMHO, and if he would be of any good faith, he would simply address me and make it clear it is not his intention to wage an edit war. Kurfürst (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

incivility
Phil, Kurfurst has not listened to your advice. He's continuing incivility where he doesn't seem to think it will be noticed (here. It is also worth checking the two diffs - he has already been warned for writing misleading edit summ's in his last block. He has also been deleting my comments. Dapi89 (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed with the accusations mess and the replies as you requested and concentrated on the article contents - after all you told us to strike out our comments that refer to the other editor and discuss the content. Dapi89 restored them all, and added another ad hominem section. And now he is running to the admin.. I guess that needs no further comment. Kurfürst (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Strike a line through, not delete. The section was added after your gross insults on the edit summaries linked above. You're kidding no one Kurfurst. No one. Dapi89 (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete it
You can not write "Ugly Women/Cross Dressers The town has become well known as having among the ugliest women in Ireland. It is also home to world famous cross dresser Ray "The Ram" Merrigan.". Not based on real facts.The article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.68.142.52 (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted it by myself. It is not based on any facts so please do not take it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.68.142.52 (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Nazi-German
I prefer Nazi because not all Germans were Nazis, my fathers uncle never bothered to become an American. He was a "German" in the eyes of the US government, but not a Nazi--Woogie10w (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I try not to get hung up on trivia, lets concentrate on reliable sources and article improvement. What does the official Polish History say on this freeking air raid on Berlin?--Woogie10w (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * On my moms side we were here during the Revolution and some of her line fought against the Crown with Washington, I have no doubt the British soldiers would have used some rather nasty language when describing my ancestors. All is forgotten, I listen to the BBC twice a day for my news. The BBC does a fine job of reporting the news with a NPOV, regards --Woogie10w (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Your feedback requested
Hello there. Noticed you were a frequent and recent contributor to the talk page for List of wars and disasters by death toll. Your feedback on the discussion here (and on my talk page here and here) regarding certain sources and abortion's relation to the subject of the article are requested and would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Genocide and Truthisfact
Please keep an eye, as I have seen you already have, on the edits by User:Truthisfact on Genocide. They are lacking in citation and proper context but I don't believe they are malicious in nature. Labattblueboy (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Does this resolution of History wars section work? - opinion requested
As I hope is obvious, I have been trying to clarify the ARTICLE on the "History wars" by separating it from a debate on the history that the warriors argue about. As I said in my first proposal for resolution, I think the substantive information (and VR's) about what happened in Tasmania belongs in the main genocide article, subsection Australia, sub-sub-section Tasmania (since there is more to be said about Australia than just Tasmania, and much of Reynold's work was in relation to Queensland, for example). In the main genocide article, I believe, it could more easily be written as you prefer, since no-one would be surprised that there was a local "History war" about it where no-one had a NPOV and it was tangled up with other things. A link to the debate would do for that.

If I have inferred your preferred version correctly, it goes like this: In the beginning (pre-Lemkin, eg Melville 1835, there was POV#0, where words like "extinction" and "extermination" were used and the issue of "genocide' could not arise since the word had not been coined; nor was there a legal framework in international law. Then there was POV #1, with Tasmania used by Lemkin as one of very few type examples (without dissent?), used by Australian historian with minor variations later, perhaps with some dissenting voices. Then there was POV #2, Windshuttle's accusation of "Fabrication" (though "careless scholarship" would be a better name for it, so far as it relates only to historiography) and a reaction to it, now evolved into POV #3 "needs more research" - of which the articles in Moses are a fair sample, it seems.  I disagree with your (slight) implication that newer and local writers are more correct, though there may be analogous cases elsewhere, as you say. In the more recent local debate about Tasmania I don't see any new facts of consequence, just more subtlety in interpretation and definition than was the case before POV#2 challenged POV#1. But otherwise I agree with what you've said.

For those interested in the article on genocide in the world, the fact that Lemkin regarded Tasmania as one of a small number of defining examples is very important, and the fact that Windshuttle self-published a book saying otherwise is not. By contrast, there would not have been a "History war" - or at least not a detailed one on this topic - if he had not chosen Tasmanian Aboriginal history as his battleground with other historians. So he is important in the "History wars" article, whether one agrees with him or not.

Now, both before and after I joined this debate, you have asked various editors to provide VR's, and in general they have, and they would improve the article, but they are lost in the maze, and it was a waste of time trying to put them in the article since it kept getting reverted, rather than refined, and they got lost. Thus I thought that assembling them into a paragraph of the form above - POV#1 (refrefref) POV#2 (refrefref) POV#3 (refrefref) - combined with agreement to delete assertions for which no VR was provided within a reasonable time, was a way out of the maze, or at least a starting point for new editors to get a succinct grip on the issues, as the new "Chill Out" editor proposes, sort of. Then, with all the assertions (and VR's where available) in the one frame, the maze of talk could be archived (as you proposed). The "chill out" editor seems to share my view about the maze, viz that no new reader would be bothered to go through it. Editor NickD said it's bad practice to try to rearrange it under the article topics it addressed, so I reverted my attempt at that. You didn't like the 'bloat" phase of asembling refs before I condensed them back down, and in hindsight I should have done it elsewhere and taken the summary back. But I wasn't sorry to abandon the attempt, because it was very tedious, and I'm not about to try to do it off-line because I'm not (yet) convinced that the main reverters would both agree that anything was NPOV - though a talk war is better than an article war. Nevertheless, if you think it useful I am willing to do a summary of the kind outlined, retaining all the POVs that have VR's, and offer it.

There would be three sections, one for "The Tasmanianian history war" - which is mainly but by no means entirely about the use of the term genocide, and has largely been triggered by Windshuttle's self-published book (The Macleay Press is just Windshuttle wearing another hat, but in the "History wars" article the book is a VR, and it was certainly peer-reviewed AFTER publication!) In theory the Tasmanian book was only Vol 1 of a series on "The Fabrication of Aboriginal History", but since there's no subsequent volume after 9 years, his relevance to the rest of Australia is quite different, and about views of historical method, and the 'culture war" in general, not detail. There would thus be different section on "The mainland history war" - which is mainly limited to smallpox (eg Campbelland others) and massacres/ violence (Reynolds and others), with offshoots that are already covered under "stolen generation", etc, and a third for the "Terra Nullius" debate, which no-one has  discussed yet, except for Webley442's preference for the Windshuttle view on "land", but where the interpretation in (British==>Australian) law of the "tides of history" (WHICH "history"???) sweeping away land-related Native Title rights made "history" very important after the landmark "Mabo" decision on Mer/Murray Island), and (IMHO) fuelled the more general public "History war". But this last is very close to the bone for settler identity (and land), and it seems best to settle one contentious issue at a time. So why not clean up the main genocide article, and then make it a main reference, so that the History war on the topic can be considered on its own merits? I am happy to take your advice on the best way to proceed. Keepitshort (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply to reply re suggestions. I thought it was a marvellous idea to move the "facts" to the History of Tasmania until I looked at the article and saw the form of it at present, ie a long timeline with a note up top from a Wikipedian suggesting that it would be better in prose than in list format. The prose "?genocide?" content would be totally out of context in the existing article, and I assume that whoever created the list format is attached to it. You'd have to rewrite the whole thing to do a prose version, and they'd be bound to get snarly. I might keep an eye on it and revisit the possibility if someone else tackles the prosing job first.  Another possibility would be Tasmanian Aborigines, which certainly addresses the issue, and avoids the difficulty with the notion of "extinction" by talking about the descendants of survivors (on whom Likebox's comments would get him into serious trouble with eg Michael Mansell, by the way.)  However, the Tasmanian Aborigines article contains some extreme atrocity allegations for which there is no evidence I know of, which would wind up certain history warriors all over again, so I'm reluctant to draw their attention to it.  Maybe the most practical solution is for you to offer a variant on what you've already offered several times for "History wars, namely a version in which the long historical perception of Tasmania as being "extinction" or "genocide" is stated with enough refs to satisfy Likebox that the priority of this POV has been adequately represented (that being the new bit) followed by the single Windshuttle reference for the extreme opposing view (to which Webley442 can add others if there are any who agree 100% with Windshuttle - I don't know any myself), and then a summary (which you've already done) of the more nuanced views of post-Windshuttle times, but with no implication that they are better.  Dates on the references in the reflist would show what's older and newer,  and the rest is for readers to judge. It might work.  I'd be willing to have a go at doing it in that form if you think it worthwhile.  regards Keepitshort (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

3RR
I put a report up on the 3RR noticeboard. Please do not continue with this behavior. It is disruptive. I would like to know what someone else thinks of the new version.Likebox (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

River Teme
Hi ! An article you have been involved with has been the subject of much discussion. If you can help with these minor issues please see Talk:River Teme (sections on navigability), and leave any comments there. --Kudpung (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Bulgarian Genocide
Ata boy! Woof, woof! --Xenovatis (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Bullgarian Genocide?
Hi Philip. Sorry for disturbing you but I had an unpleasant encounter with a user who accused me on my talk page of trying to censor the facts of the Bulgarian Genocide after I reverted an IP on the Greek genocide article. To cut the story short I provide you with the following diffs:diff1, diff2. I think the diffs speak for themselves. Take care. Tasos. (Dr.K. logos 18:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC))

Thank you
Thank you for the assistance and for the links that you provided. I admit that I'm not an experienced wikipedian yet and might have caused 'unpleasant' experiances to other users, something that I regret. In fact it was never my intention to cause misunderstanding, but rather I wanted to offer my service in order to benefit readers with balanced and informative contributions. Some user wrote on the Bulgarian Genocide talk page, that it won't be there 'for long' so the buisness of creating unpleasantness was on both sides. The truth of the matter is that the Bulgarian Genocide page was created and deleted quite a few times, the last time just minutes after being written. Surely deleting entries outright without any discussion what-so-ever isn't the way free men interact. Also I believe people who contribute are all bound to bring balanced and informative articles to readers. There is aboundant information on the Bulgarian genocide and that is the reason why officials from the bulgarian GERB party set to win the elections on 5 July 2009 call for its official recognition. One such source would be the writings of american journalist Januarius MacGahan, who saw it first-hand while traveling through the Balkans. Another would be the Treaty of Angora, where Turkey admitted to cleansing bulgarians from Thrace and acquiring their property. The Batak massacre is also very well documented. May I once more apologize for any misunderstanding and express my hope that the discussions going on here would in the end serve their purpose of benefiting community. God Bless. Kansai mikan (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

And another thank you, from me: thanks for the tip regarding reverts. I just wish it wasn't necessary to do it. But when there's nothing salvagable in what gets put in, what can you do? Webley442 (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You will do no such thing
It is extremely important that the text appear as is on the talk page. Do not vandalize the comments. Actually, do not TOUCH THEM. They are not your comments.Likebox (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry. The div is better. I apologize for the bit of paranoia above.Likebox (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Keeping it simple
Agreed that it might get him started on it rather than addressing the first sentence. Still it may not help, though, as he seems to shrug off all attempts to get him on track and just starts again from the beginning. Webley442 (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Seeing where he's gone since, I don't think that there is any chance of getting Likebox to just stick to the first sentence and accept that he's wrong there. May as well attack on a different front. At the risk of being called verbose and long-winded, I'm going to post some stuff which may address some of his nonsense about it just being Windschuttle and so forth. Don't expect, he'll ever take notice but it may inform other users looking on. Webley442 (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, too late. Perhaps if TK reads it she'll realise he's talking rubbish. Webley442 (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Request
Phillip, I have taken notice of your request at the DOH talk page, and will get you that information soon (a few days). Need to get the book out of the library again. Best, D. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Worcestershire
Hi Philip! I am including  you in this message because your previous comments on  various issues have been most  helpful. Since the recent creation  of the Worcestershire project, several  editors are making  a concentrated effort  to  improve the articles and the overall  coverage of the county. Many of us are learning  as we go and since some of these issues regard Wikipedia and/or parent  project  policy and how we should interpret them,  it  may  be a good idea to  discuss them with  a view to  obtaining  a consensus before we do  things that  may  be wasting  our time, or undoing  the work  of others. Please refer to these discussion items in particular: and join in the debate on  the Worcestershire project  talk  page. If you would also like to  join the project  as a member, please do  not  hesitate to  do  so -  we need all  the help  we can get. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Worcestershire
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Worcestershire
 * Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates (users Brian Kenedig, Pavel Vozenilek)

Henry Mildmay
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Henry Mildmay, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.pepysdiary.com/p/3799.php. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. This one threw me a bit, because I went looking for your note at talk. Evidently you had intended to make one, but didn't? Your initial edit summary suggests as much, as does your deletion log. It's not an issue for me, since all I need to do is let CP and SCV know that there are no copyright issues here, but I thought I'd let you know in case you'd had a reason to want to make a note at talk but forgotten to do so. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Correction: somebody already let SCV know. It's only CP that wasn't notified. Oh, the joy of redundant labor. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Regicides of Charles I
I'll try to lend a hand. I have a copy of Wedgwood's "A Coffin for King Charles" (1966), which got me started. Goustien (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Terror bombing
I have no idea how many sources you require for the section on the Blitz to be defined as terror bombing - there are literally dozens, but including them all would be clear overlinking. There may be a case to be made that the section is slightly WP:UNDUE, and I don't think anyone would have problems with the section being tweaked to counter that, but it is also very clear that at least a brief mention of the Blitz in the article is justified and more no the point, that it is verifiable. More to the point, it is clear per the talkpage that you have no consensus for removing the section, and so I have restored it. Black Kite 10:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hinchliffe, 2000
Hi PBS,

I just got your message about the Hinchliffe source - perfect timing since I was away on vacation and just got back a few hours ago. The source you asked for is from Other Battle: Luftwaffe Night Aces vs. Bomber Command (Hardcover) by Peter Hinchliffe. As to the proper sourcing, I am at in some trouble, because the edition which I have is the local translation, and therefore, adding it as a source is probably not much of use for English-speaking readers. I guess it could be referenced as the English 1996 edition as on the amazon page, but then probably the page numbers will be different in these two editions. So I am not sure what the practicak course of action would be, though of course I can add my local edition, ISBN - doubt it would be of any use to anybody though! Kurfürst (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Also I noticed that in that article that the frenzy for removal of well sourced, so called 'out of context' statements restarted. That article already has a lot of problems, some of the editors were tinkering with quotes from the references, re-writing them and changing their meaning completely to the opposite to what the source say.. because they believe that to be the 'truth', regardless of the source.. As the talk page shows, its a question that will not solve itself via communication with these troublesome editors, so I believe some sort of more serious course of action should be neccessary, an independent comittee of sorts that reviews that referenced statements and how they match the references themselves etc. This has been at rest for a while, but frankly, what I see there is a small group of editors that stubbornly removes a lot of information, solely because their prejudice and hatred, that others added to the article, with a lot of work to make them verifiable. It strikes me as a typicial 'I just don't like it' attitude and this sort of destruction of the article must stop.. it just keeps degrading it. Kurfürst (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

James Temple
Please hold the deletion of this article for a few days. I will get back to you asap to propose an alternative way forward. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have copied the article to my user space. I believe that it would be relatively easy to remove from it everything that was in the article on 4th February 2007 (and hence anything copied from the British Civil Wars site). I could then fill in the resulting ommissions from other sources. Would that be acceptable? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've looked at all the edits made by editors other than myself since 4th February 2007. As far as I can see, none of them makes substantive changes to the text. They are corrections of grammar, spelling and format, changes to wiki links or categories. None of the edits I made used material from David Plant's site. I'm no lawyer, but if all material that is subject to the unnaceptable license is removed, I don't see how there can be a claim against what remains. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

maintenance spam
Hi Philip. Sorry that I forgot to respond to your message (re: maintenance and trivial 'something missing' templates), I've been trying to ignore the problem. Did you find the discussions I was referring to? cygnis insignis 07:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A mirrored article copied from a PD source!? Regards, cygnis insignis 09:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please return the level three headers to the naming conventions. cygnis insignis 18:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is the talk page diff where you stated that you did just that. If I have to fish out the diff where you actually did it, I will bring you back a trout. cygnis insignis 18:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok mate, you're off the hook and I'm left with my trout ;) You can understand why I thought did, from the diff above, and your intervention did not prevent User:M from restoring his challenged preference. Regards, cygnis insignis 19:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Do Not Write
I have no interest in communicating with you. Please do not leave messages for me. Stop posting threats, I will continue to do exactly what I am doing until you go away.Likebox (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Sorry Abce2 | Aww nuts! Wribbit!(Sign here)  18:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Lord Forbes
No, it's at the right place. In the Peerage of Scotland, the lowest rank of the peerage is not Baron (which means something different in Scotland), but "Lord of Parliament." A lord of parliament, like Lord Forbes, is properly referred to as "Lord X," and not "Baron X". john k (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Re. Merging into Historical Genocides
If the article is too long, can't it just be divided into historical periods? PasswordUsername (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Your reverted change subject
''Wolfkeeper. No it is the other way around. That would be a major change, as it would stop WP:RMs where the name of the content of the article maches the name.)''

We don't actually currently say anywhere that the title has to be any relation at all to the contents!!

My edit just says that the article title and article contents must match, they must be about the same topic. There's usually multiple different titles that match article contents. It doesn't change anything at all with respect page moves.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Irish Battles
Hi Philip.

Thanks for the links to those sources, this is the sort of thing am looking for. The general topic of the 1641-53 war in Ireland is a crazy massive topic (almost certainly the largest war in Irish history) and it really requires a great deal more work.

Just in case you are interested, I am currently working on a little webpage to try and make sense of this major war in Ireland. At the moment it is just a blogpage but I hope to do more with it in future. I have already transferred a couple of articles from the page to wikipedia (the Sack of Cashel and Siege of Charlemont articles) and there is another interesting one (the siege of Kilkenny, 1650) that I plan to do as a wikipedia article in the near future. I am doing something on the 1643 Battle of Castlelions (mentioned in the new Inchiquin article you have done there); again, I will do a version for Wikipedia eventually also unless something unexpected comes up.

Feel free to send me a message if you have any interest in the above project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inchiquin (talk • contribs) 11:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming conflicts proposed changes RfC
Those wishing to radically change the WP:Naming conflicts guidance have set up a position statement/poll at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict as a prelude to RfC. Since you have expressed a view on this guideline and have not so far been informed of this, could you now express which proposals you support on the guidance talk page.  Xan dar  00:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts
Hello, Nick-D. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding User:Likebox a user with which you have been involved. The discussion is about his activities at Quantum mysticism which may be related to his activity at Talk:History wars further information can be found at Wikiquette alerts. Thank you.--OMCV (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If this becomes an issue of Likebox's activity as an editor you might be interested.--OMCV (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sir Francis Barrington, 1st Baronet
Hi, Sir Henry Cromwell, nicknamed the Golden Knight, was a Member of Parliament and is notable by WP:Politician. As it is therefore likeley that an article about him could be created in future, I have reinserted the wikilink, you had removed. Best wishes Phoe   talk   22:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions reverts
The policy on such changes is that while disagreement on the talk page should prevent further changes, a lack of agreement does not. Agreement is not required, and silence and the absence of reasoned objections implies consent. Do you have an objection to the changes? If so, please provide it on the talk page or in your edit summary. I hope that we agree that "you didn't get permission" is not a valid objection. If you have no objections, I'll resume cleanup shortly.   M   21:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, can you do me one little favor? Don't revert me while I'm right in the middle of doing cleanup. I'm trying to supply you with some clear diffs, and the end result may look nothing like the page that you object to. <i style="position:absolute;z-index:-1;bottom:0;width:2.2em;height:8px;background:#eee;"> </i> M   00:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you reverting just for the sake of process? Why could you possibly object to ? And if you have no objection, why would you revert? <i style="position:absolute;z-index:-1;bottom:0;width:2.2em;height:8px;background:#eee;"> </i> M   21:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration
You are a party in a request for an Arbitration: Arbitration/Requests/Case --Rockstone (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

John Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher
Please could you move the talk page too. It is currently Talk:Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher--Toddy1 (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks--Toddy1 (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Football move
Was it really necessary to close the RM for football so soon? Considering how confused the opposing votes were, it felt that we needed more time for discussion, not a swift closure. Could you consider re-opening the request?

Peter Isotalo 09:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply posted at User talk:Peter Isotalo
 * With regards to Talk:Football I don't think my closure was hasty. I would suggest that a dab page is created at Football (disambiguation), with a hatnotes at Football, leave it six months (the usual minimum time between requested name changes) and then try again when people are able to see what is being proposed. Perhaps then there will be a clear consensus. --PBS (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If there wasn't clear consensus, then why the rush? It seemed very obvious to me that there was confusion about what the actual objective of the request was. I've had my eye on that article before and thought it should be split up properly, and even I misunderstood the request initially. If you look at the linked discussions, you'll see that there's been a steady stream of reqests to make the main entry a proper dabpage from various users, both anons and registered ones. I don't think it was really necessary to terminate an ongoing discussion like that when there was an obvious need for clarification.
 * Peter Isotalo 16:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Philip, if you close a vote on a move request, do you really think it's appropriate to jump into the discussion a few days later with an articulated opinion on the matter? If you reply to this, please do it here.

Peter Isotalo 05:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Your suggestion at Talk:Football is in my opinion for the reasons given is not a good idea. If it were not for the fact that I am assuming good faith, I would be tempted to assume that as you did not get a consensus to move "Football" to "History of football" you have decided to propose a cut and past move. --PBS (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * With that kind of low threshold for bad faith, any proposal to move any content from football would constitute a sneaky, conniving cut-n-paste suggestion. And, I assume, any such suggestion in any article that happened to have been the subject of a recent move request. I was unsatisfied with how utterly confused the recent RM discussion was and I was hoping to create a separate discussion for a separate issue. That you go in and try to police an attempt at continued discussion is rather condescending, both towards me and football people. It implies that I'm somehow trying to trick people into doing something they don't want to and that you have to go in and stop me before I pull it off. Keeping substantial article changes that go against consensus in check as an admin is one thing, but acting pre-emptively against mere discussion... Well, I think you understand what I'm getting at.
 * Peter Isotalo 15:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Allied war crimes during World War II
Thanks for your comments on my Talk page. In this case I don't think the article is beyond remedy, but it needs the application of sources to the overall topic rather than just to individual examples. The whole topic needs to be derived from sources. If there are no books on a topic, it suggests the topic is not notable. In this case I'm sure there are. Cyclopaedic (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Plese see...
...the warning I just left on Xandar's page. His maligning of your clearly honorable motives is unacceptable. Your response in kind is equally so. I really think that you know better, and I will make an issue of this if you can't start to model better behavior. Does that sound fun or productive to you? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it appears that I made a stupid mistake and owe you an apology. Xandar was going after your motives, and I crossed wires when I saw PMAnderson talking about his. I seem to have thought it was you. That's fairly typical of the kind of mistake I make just after criticizing someone else for jumping to conclusions. In this case, I criticized Xandar, and then turned around and made an extremely dumb conclusion jump about yourself. I apologize unreserverdly, and I'm off to WT:NC now to say so in that context where I maligned you. Having searched the page for what the hell I must have been thinking of, I couldn't find any place where you swung back at Xandar on the same level. I'm sorry, and embarrassed. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good to see this getting corrected. You might want to make a correction over at User talk:Xandar too...  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Thanks. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Your question
"Op. cit." means "work cited." There was a cite flag put on a discussion of the Petition of Right, and the parts discussed were that work at parts III and VII. DCB4W (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Op. cit. didn't refer to the work cited in the previous footnote-- it referred to the work actually being discussed in that paragraph, i.e. the Petition of Right. The "cite needed" referred to a statement that discussed references made in the Petition; I cited to the relevant paragraphs, which is the only subdivision marked in the original document. I'm not sure what exactly you think is lacking, but feel free to make any adjustments you think necessary. I removed the Op. cit. annotation since that seems to be confusing. DCB4W (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Removal of exceptions to "use common names" passage.
This is to inform you that the removal of exceptions to the use of Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.

You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location.  Xan <font color="00A86B">dar  22:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Old chestnuts
These naming issues seem endless. I try to avoid getting sucked in but found the article title for Horse chestnut to be absurd when I wanted to write something on the subject recently. I restructured the naming per WP:COMMONNAME but the botanists are pushing back. I think they are mistaken in that horse chestnuts are a crop with many practical uses and our general practise is to name in English in such cases, e.g. Barley. Anyway, I thought you'd find the matter interesting and this may offset my opposition to your recent edit of the general policy. The main discussion seems to be at Talk:Aesculus_hippocastanum. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Old chestnuts"—that was my line! This is copyvio and you should warn him :p cygnis insignis 11:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Limited consensus
You showed me this shortcut in a guideline conversation a few weeks ago, CONLIMITED, and I'm wondering what you think about the RfC here, Wikipedia_talk:User_categories. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Scharnhorst Battleship / Battlecruiser debate
Hello,

There is a discussion over at Talk:Scharnhorst_class_warship_(1936) to rename the article. Since you were an active participant in debate last time, I wanted to let you know about it so all sides can be heard. Sea photo <sup style="color:#3333cc;">Talk 19:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Denial of the Armenian Genocide
Philip, I'm neither an expert on genocide nor an expert on the events orchestrated by the Ottoman Empire in Armenia in 1915. Nor was it my intention to say that the move should be rejected. In fact, it is quite clear to me that the two articles in question are unnecessary forks of some sort. However, I think you need to do two things, first get enough support for the merge itself (which you seem to be doing quite well) and second, settle on a name for the merged article. The proposed title Armenian genocide dispute seems problematic to me for the reasons I outlined when I closed the move - because it implies that the genocide itself is in dispute. If it is the genocide itself that is in dispute, then the article Armenian genocide should be retitled Armenian genocide dispute and all the material merged into it. If the genocide is not in dispute, then it is the recognition of the genocide that is the focus of a dispute and the merged article should be retitled accordingly. My suggestion is that you settle on a title in the merge discussion first and deal with the move second. Regards, --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

How to make a horse
Hi PBS - this is something I always needed! Lol! Nice RTE article; might pinch some stuff from it for our version! Sarah777 (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you a WP:Administrator?
Are you also the same person as User:PhilKnight? --Ludvikus (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the polite language with which you've expressed your recommendations on my Talk page.
 * And I certainly intend to honor the four (4) restrictions you're place on my Talk page. I certainly do not intend to violate that.
 * And I certainly do not wish to cause you any distress my my request that you at least remove my restriction regarding the Talk page.
 * But if you think I should not contest the four (4) Restriction at this time, I will not.
 * Please advise accordingly. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Your input needed at ...
... User_talk:Dbachmann. Thanks! Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  12:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Cookie
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

The Second Coming of The Cookie Monster has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

World Domination update
I've suggested merging World Domination into The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I know this may sound crazy but please check out the present status of the first article. Discussion is at Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And now check out World domination. I certainly will not Confront the editor who reverted the consensus. I want your opinion on this before I do anything. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like the Original Research of User:Toddy1. He seems to have reverted the work I've done by consensus. He's done exact what you claim I've done for which you've Restricted me. So I'm very interested in your views and actions on this issue. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI -- How to get around a topic ban?
You might want to check out. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

How do I handle this by WP rules?
See here: --Ludvikus (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Taking up your offer
Hi, I really appreciate your offer to help with my postings, It's not my intention to make people angry about what I write, but if they are trying to impose their views without any real proof how is that my comment which is based on actual facts is deleted and qualified as a anti-semitic nonsense. What do I need to do to get my posting reinstated?, do I need to list the names of the owners of the major media networks, or the name of the people that owns Hollywood?, what do I need to make my point stand?. If you read the book it's just like reading the prophecies of Nostradamus, the difference is that the protocols aren't written on riddles.--Kettenhunde (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, now I got the point, anyway, would it be a problem if before I try to edit something you can give me some advice, until I get it totally right.--Kettenhunde (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Haskins Medal
You're still better than I am at footnoting. I messed up a bit. Can you WP:Cleanup after me, here, at Awards: ? Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Respectful request
Dear Wikipedia Administrator User:PBS.
 * talk→  BWilkins   ←track  has advised me that I make a request to you, personally, informing you that he recommends that I be permitted to participate on the Talk pages of the four (4) Historical Revisionism related articles from which you've Restricted me.
 * 1) I can assure you that I will not abuse the privilege - particularly since ADM BWilkins has expressed a concern that the discourse will not be "heated."
 * 2) I can also assure you that I will pay particular attention to your point of view since you've found my previous performance there inadequate.
 * 3) I'm also aware of the generosity of "ADM Phil" who lifted my two-year ban from WP - and I wouldn't want to make him regret that he took me back.
 * Sincerely, --Ludvikus (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Philip: got your note, and fully acknowledge. Have a quick glace at my latest reply to Ludvikus.  Hopefully we can eventually have a positive contributor across all of Wikipedia :-)  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 13:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Ludvikus Request to lift restrictions
Dear PBS,
 * I filed or posted an WP:ANI requsting that the Restrictions on my editing which you've placed be lifted.
 * --Ludvikus (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Project Management Institute
Hi, I would like you to take a look at Talk:Project Management Institute, and adress to my concerns if possible. Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Management Cybernetics
If you have the time, would you take a look at Mdd's recent comments on the talk page for Management cybernetics. Thanks. Bacrito (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Terror bombing
To restore what would, as far as I can see, be a consensus version. Looking at the history, you have so far reverted at least five different editors on this, the latest one being today. I admit I wasn't aware of the RFC at the time, which I will respond to at some point. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 17:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Timothy F. H. Allen
I restored the biography section in the Timothy F. H. Allen, because I truely believe there is no p-problem here. It is written in an own simple standard, which rearranges the biographical facts, I have implemented in over 1000+ biographical articles.

It it up to you to judge and do what you have to do. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks
(I just removed a little rant I posted here regarding Mdd that I regret. I stand behind the opinion, but I overdid the umbrage. Forgive me.)

Something I'd like to clarify: when I asked you to look at the Management Cybernetics page, I had already seen that Mdd had reverted his revert. You wrote on his talk page: ''I was asked to look at Management cybernetics by Bacrito. Mdd I am pleased that you decided to revert your revert, because otherwise you would have been in breach of the WP:COPYVIO policy for reintroducing copyright material'' I think Mdd was probably thinking I was laying a trap for him or something. I want you to know, in case you thought I was hoping you'd catch him in an immediate violation of your warning, that was not the case. I just wanted you to see how he was reacting to my attempts to fix some things. Bacrito (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well. If you look at Thomas A. DeFanti history and talk, you'll understand why I now request that you block him from further editing immediately. Bacrito (talk) 10:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (mainly so he doesn't start restoring stuff to the utterly specious biographies he created and that I've been cleaning up -- they just need to be deleted; he created a whole host of bio's on the same pattern: only refs are links to the subjects themselves. I think in some cases those subjects aided him in creating what amount to Who's Who style pages; the criteria for speedy deletion and so forth are to complex for me to understand, so I'm just blasting the obviously cut and pasted stuff, on presumption of copyvio, and because there may be some collusion between him and the subjects of the articles.

I asked MDD to ask for the deletion of all such articles himself, but he declined. I hope he can be restrained from interfering with any edits to "his" pages, since the scope of what he's done constitutes wholesale disregard of any standards for article creation or editing. Bacrito (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The Beckwith Company
Dear PBS,
 * I would very much appreciate your advice on how I should handle what I perceive as a WP:Troll who I think is simply being vidictive, and trying to "Prove a Point." Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please hold off: I may have misunderstood zealousness and boldness for the V. But we're now engaged in discussion(s) on the talk page. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Continued WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT userfied from Talk:Denialism per WP:TALK "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article"

 * Where is it clear in policy to state that a word in not in a dictionary? -- PBS (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OR at least, as has been said many times. Please drop the stick, this horse has been dead for at least 4 months. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  17:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is no more OR to say a word is not in the OED than it is to say that it is in the OED. -- PBS (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we have an RS for it being in there, but as to it's not being in the OED being in any way worthy of note, well we need an RS for that. As you well know. I suggest WP:IGNORE is now used. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "It is no more OR to say a word is not in the OED than it is to say that it is in the OED." But the article says neither, so there's no problem. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Further corrections and improvements in my work
Hi PBS, could you take a look here and advise. Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Technical drawing
Hi, thanks for explaining at Flowchart. Could you take a similar action at Technical drawing, which is just reverted. -- Mdd (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi again, I reverted the two reverts and left a note at the talkpage and usertalkpage. I guess this will do for now. -- Mdd (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Your edit to First World
Hi Philip; this article is being edited by my students as part of an educational assignment. Perhaps you could explain to them on talk why you removed some information from the article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You may also be interested in the project involving Semi-periphery countries article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Feedback would be appreciated
Since you are currently going through dealing with a multiple point infringer, you may be in excellent position to give feedback on the new proposed process page at Contributor copyright investigations. I plan to place it at village pump soon (like maybe tomorrow), but would like a fresh set of eyes that might help find glaring issues before doing so. Thanks for any input you may be able to offer. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have an interest in adding your comments. Thank you. --Loremaster (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Denialism archive
It's in the archive, I added it after you pointed out it was missing. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  17:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To show good faith, please undo your change and start a discussion. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Karadzic Trial
We cannot wait the verdict - I agree. But, what I am presenting is opinion of Serbian and Bosnian authors who correctly observe and correctly argue that Radovan Karadzic is currently THE ONLY PERSON charged with the Bosnian genocide in 10 municipalities, instead of 1. Do you get it? That was the whole point of my Edit @ Bosnian genocide article. Bosniak (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Denialism
An article that you have been involved in editing, Denialism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.Unomi (talk) 06:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Re the alert
Thanks for the heads-up. I've been wondering why we haven't had to deal with him for a while. Obviously he was keeping his head down while the review of his behaviour was under way. Maybe we'll be able to make some progress with the article now rather than constantly dealing with him. Webley442 (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Citation templates
Hi. I was just wondering if you had any objection to using citation templates for references? I've just applied one to the reference you added to the London article. Perhaps you could consider using them in future to save someone having to convert references. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a note regarding nothing in particular
-   - Does it ever strike you that if we didn't have to spend so much time in interminable edit wars to protect articles we could have been producing masterpieces here on WP? -   - I mean, think of all the energy we could have used over the years on constructive things, that has been wasted in pov wars and "disputes". And it's getting worse, not better imo. Anyway. Just a dissilusioned rant. Keep on keeping on. -   - ps. Any early modern type projects you know of that need work? Jdorney (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Jean Baptiste Pierre Constant, Count of Suzannet
Hi, You say this is translated from http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Constant_de_Suzannet- has the "t" dropped off Suzannet in translation, or have you a source for the variant name? I dropped by to stub-sort and was puzzled! PamD (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced
I have no problem with the rationale of this edit, but why did you put the closing tag outside the Ambox? The closing tag could have stayed where it was. Debresser (talk) 07:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

A point on scans
Something I noticed while expanding George Fleetwood (Swedish general): a couple of the dates seemed to have slipped from the 1650s to 1660s. It happens that the font used for the old DNB text is particularly confusing to the OCR when scanning the digit 5, and it often becomes the digit 6. I have seen this so regulatly that I now look out for it, and I thought I'd mention it to you. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppenheimer
User:DinDraithou has been busy -. I intend reverting, so that these issues can be discussed properly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry yes, I didn't make myself clear and some of his/her edits might be justified. The problem is that he/she has taken on him/herself to assume that the article on Genetic history of the British Isles is unacceptable and/or politically incorrect (in the use of the term "BI") and is seeking to delete references to it without proper discussion.  So, as there is no agreement on the future of that article, I intend reverting those changes until the future of that article is properly resolved.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've raised his actions at WP:AN/I - no point in getting into edit wars, I suggest he's blocked and there's a cooling off period followed by some sensible discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help - I may not be able to respond very quickly over the next few days. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

First World at GAN
First World is currently undergoing a Good Article Nomination process. As you were interested in this article in the past, perhaps you'd like to help with the review and offer some comments? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
RashersTierney (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruption at History of terrorism
I think User talk:Capt Jack Doicy, User talk:LSG280709 as well as User talk:92.239.38.135 and merits further examination wrt the dynamic anon IPs 82.26.xxx.xxx. 86.26.xxx.xxx 86.25.xxx.xxx etc. I think this uncivil editor has been tolerated here for longer than might appear at first glance. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 12:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Tim1357 (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Tithing (country subdivision) rename
Could you please undo your move of tithing (country subdivision) to tithing, which was done on Nov 2nd? Tithing should be a disambiguation, as the word "tithe" (as a verb) is also commonly used in the "tithing" (present participle) form within articles here at WP to refer to the religious concept. See also tithe and tithing. I'd be happy to make a proper disambig page at tithing once this undo is completed. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Dersim genocide
Hi there PBS, I would like to point your attention to the following articles. I'll just get my popcorn and soda. --Anothroskon (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Genocides_in_history
 * Dersim genocide

Fortress or Castle of Komarom
Hi Philip,

At Battles of Komárom you changed Castle of Komárom to Fortress. Myself and User:Monkap have translated the battles in this series from Hungarian, and we discussed which word was better. We settled on Castle, she says it was not a fortress. For example, Castle Drégely is so named, although it was a fortress.

The difficulty here is maybe that Castle, to a worldwide audience, means a kinda fairy-tale Disneyland castle and not a fortress. Whereas certainly to a British speaker a castle is almost synonymous with castle.

There is also a difficulty with "Castle" in that it can come before or after the name, q.v. for example Castle Douglas and Douglas Castle. This may be problematic for American English speakers, I don't know, whereas Fortress would (I think) come before in all English variants. As it happens I redlinked to Drégely Castle, even though I have edited that article, so it shows that it is a real error not an imagined one.

I don't mind which word we choose, but it should be consistent. "Castle" is also used in a couple of other articles in this series, Richard Debaufre Guyon and György Cseszneky, and also at Alaptolma and Cseszneky and Komárom County and Battle of Vienna and... well, you get the idea.

I really don't mind which, and I should like to settle on one term or the other. Somewhere, but I have lost it, there are references to it being used in British English by historians (I think, but certainly in English, perhaps not British) as Fortress. That would make a good decider in my opinion.

It looks like Fort Monostor might need some work too, and then Komárno should be merged with Komárom I think. I will take that one up. You've opened a right can of worms, old bean.

So, in summary: our decision was not arbitrary, we thought carefully on it. If you disagree then that is fine, and I am leaning towards fortress. Unfortunately most current articles say castle. Some merging etc. is probably necessary.

THis would be better at a talk page but since it covers several articles it is hard to pick one, so I respond here first.

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 12:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

In general a castle is a medieval construction anything constructed as a trace italienne is a fortress. Castles tended to be lived in while fortresses tend to be constructed after fortifications and the dwellings of the owners became different structures. EG, Edward I built castles but no palaces, Henry VIII built fortresses to defend his kingdom but palaces to live in. The names of older constructions that have been upgraded depends: It is the Tower of London (not "London Castle") even though the keep was supplemented with many later modifications. In this case I see from this article] that the current fortifications (as in the image) were started in 1850. So what was on the site in 1848? If this article is about the same edifice then it was a fortress by 1572. If the name castle or fortress was used in exclusion to the other in reliable sources, then the decision would be easy. But searching with Google on Google Books on one excluding the other (eg [ Komárom -Fortress Castle ] and [ Komárom Fortress -Castle ] shows that both terms are used. But a closer look at the sources shows that the references that use castle tend to be for events earlier than 1800 (typically the middle ages), while those for the events of this period tend to use fortress. Therefore for as many sources use fortress and the place was clearly a fortress at the time, the term fortress should be used. We should not use the same term (Castle, Fort or Fortress) for all buildings, we should be guided by what the sources say and also fortress can come before or after the name, it depends on the place eg Ahmednagar Fort, but Fort William--PBS (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * For added ambiguity, there is Komárom and Komárno. They were on3 city but are now two, now two, one on the Hungarian side of the border and one on the Slovakian side. I am sure you can imagine that the castle/fortress is kinda right in the middle. It's mentioned at Komárno but not at Komárom. I wanted to merge these articles, but Monkap says they are definitely separate places now, separated by the Danube, i.e. kinda the reverse of what happened with Buda and Pest to make Budapest.


 * So it gets trickier and tricker. By the way, I made a redirect from Drégely Castle to Castle Drégely, but if we hit on fortress, I will happily change that, it was not made to exacerbate the problem.


 * I'll check those refs later, thanks, currently in the middle of subbing another battle. Si Trew (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Safety Committee
The first reference, while it includes both committees, has the information immediately visible, the second takes four screens of other stuff before you get there. Rich Farmbrough, 18:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC).

WP UK Politics auto-tagging
Hi. Sorry for the problems with the UK Politics auto-tagging. The bot has finished its run so there won't be any additional mistakes. It is now just a case of checking the articles and removing the small proportion of incorrect tags. I have run through the List of Lord Mayors of London today and updated/fixed the project banners for all entries before 1707 (even where mistagging had been avoided). I am setting up a task to verify 16,000 articles added in the recent bot run, but will start off with any problem categories that have already been identified. Please let me know if you spot any other areas of mistagging and I will focus my attention there. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Peasant revolt
This article does not work well as a dab page. I am planning on moving it to List of peasant revolts unless you object and can convince me it's a bad idea. ---<font face="Georgia"> RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 00:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, all of that makes perfect sense. Going through the "what links here" list, I found an astonishing number of redirects, plus another dag page (which should be deleted), all of which needs to be sorted out.  But, all in day's work, yes?  Cheers! ---<font face="Georgia"> RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  14:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am working my way through it. Thanks! ---<font face="Georgia"> RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  14:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy Report
A summary of the community's comments on our WP:Edit warring policy will be featured in the Policy Report in next Monday's Signpost, and you're invited to participate. Monthly changes to this page are available at WP:Update/1/Conduct policy changes, July 2009 to December 2009, and it may help to look at previous policy surveys at WT:SOCK, WT:CIVILITY or WT:U. There's a little more information at WT:Edit warring. I'm not watchlisting here, so if you have questions, feel free to ask there or at my talk page. Thanks for your time. - Dank (push to talk) 04:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sir Thomas Aston, 1st Baronet
Hi, some points to your edits: Rayment and ThePeerage are generally considered reliable sources, used by several admins and two wikiprojects on thousands of articles (see for example the standard templates Rayment and Lundy as well as WikiProject_UK_Parliament_constituencies and WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage). I believe there was even a discussion about this somewhere, but I'm apparently unable to locate it. I noted also that you have removed Aston's burial place; may I ask you why? Finally not everybody is familiar with the abbreviation MP, so to write the term out in full is the more clear and in my view the more presentable solution (see also Manual of Style (abbreviations)). Greetings Phoe   talk   21:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Occupied territories
Would you mind if I unprotect that article? I think that they are committed to talking and seeking outside input instead of edit warring, and will monitor the article for further outbreaks. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, going by explicit statements rather than impressions works for me - thanks. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm having a problem
I'm having a problem with user NickCT. If you take a look at his talk page, you'll see that his attacks aren't stopping. In fact, they're only becoming more nasty. He also did not cross out any of his posts from the original talk page (occupied territory) where we had the initial issue. What do you suggest I do? I've never been harassed to this extent on Wikipedia, so I'm not completely familiar with the process of bringing admins into the picture. Thanks, Breein1007 (talk) 06:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you'll appreciate that Breein1007 is infact harrassing me PBS. Please tell me how to file a wiki equivelent of a cease-and-desist/restraining order againt him. NickCT (talk) 13:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be rude PBS but I don't think it's fair of you to justify his remarks by comparing them to what I said. My comment may have been "provocative" in your terms, but it certainly was not a personal attack. He was behaving incredibly inappropriately and saying disgusting things about me. By posting on my wall that I showed bad faith, that people have lenience on their talk pages, and that in your opinion, based on my post, he could not be reprimanded, you only further egged him on. Look what it led to: his reply to my post above is just one of several examples. Anyway, I would just hope that as an admin you would take a little bit more care in the future to keep in mind that your words will be taken for great value and users will take advantage of what you say to justify their behaviour. It seems another admin has stepped in and taken action here; I'm glad he was able to see the situation more clearly. I hope that NickCT will be able to use this as an opportunity to think about his behaviour and realize that his personal attacks are not welcome on Wikipedia and do not help to contribute positively with other editors to improve the site. I am happy to move on from this series of events and hopefully only encounter NickCT in more positive ways in the future. Breein1007 (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Conduct
PBS you do not own this article nor wikipedia at large, I am under no duty nor obligation to do anything particularly if this would add to your delusion you can order other editors to do anything. I am growing increasingly concerned by your conduct and have raised the issue on the admin noticeboard. Sherzo (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ANI link. Unomi (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hotel
You asked about the pronunciation note: Fowler's Modern English Usage, 1949 edition, p 238: "hotel: The old-fashioned pronunciation with the h silent (cf humble, humour, humorous, honorarium) is certainly doomed, and is not worth fighting for." Deipnosophista (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Napoleonic Wars
I'm working to get this cleaned up again, care to bail in and help out? Tirronan (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Leigh Rayment
As a side note and only as an information: do you remember our little talk about Rayment's reliability or more specifically that of his web site? I assume you know of http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/ and you consider the site and their work reliable, so you might be surprised (like me) that apparently Rayment is involved in it (see for example ). Best wishes and a prosperous new year (in some days). Phoe  talk   01:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Kohima lead
The lead of this article as it stood on 1st January 2010 read,

The Battle of Kohima (sometimes referred to as the "Stalingrad of the East") was the turning point of the Japanese U Go offensive into India in 1944 in World War II. It was fought from 4 April to 22 June 1944 around the town of Kohima in northeast India. The battle took place in three stages. From 3 April to 16 April, the Japanese attempted to capture Kohima ridge, a feature which dominated the road by which the major British and Indian troops at Imphal were supplied. By mid-April, the small British force at Kohima was relieved, and from 18 April to 13 May, British and Indian reinforcements counter-attacked to drive the Japanese from the positions they had captured. The Japanese abandoned the ridge at this point but continued to block the Kohima-Imphal road. From May 16 to 22 June, the British and Indian troops pursued the retreating Japanese and reopened the road. The battle ended on 22 June when British and Indian troops from Kohima and Imphal met at Milestone 109, ending the siege of Imphal. After defeat at Kohima, having lost a considerable amount of manpower and equipment and suffering from shortages in food and other supplies the Japanese were forced to retreat into Burma, where during the course of late 1944 and early 1945 the Allies launched a series of offensives that ultimately resulted in Allied victory in Burma.

I believe that the last paragraph is irrelevant to the Battle of Kohima. Removing the opening clause "after defeat at Kohima" does not in any way change its sense, and the subsequent generalities are true whether or not the battle had ever been fought.

However, I recognise that my removal of the paragraph may have been a little brusque, and I must the important word "not" in the edit summary for my restoration. I will not object should you decide to restore the, but I would urge you to consider whether it is truly relevant to the article. HLGallon (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: American and British English differences
''Back in June 2008 you made this edit. Does the reference you supplied cover all the points that you made including "some (but not most) British writers prefer"? --PBS (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)''


 * Yes, it does. Specifically, the percentages for a vs. an are as follows: hallucination (50/50); hilarious (85/15); historic(al) (57/43); horrendous (70/30); horrific (71/29); hotel (93/7).  Source: British texts in the Cambridge International Corpus.  I remember this was discussed some two and a half years ago.  I'm <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA">[dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ]  and I approve this message. 02:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)