User talk:PBS/Archive 13

Titles
Looking at your work on 1st Baron Hungerford of Heytesbury the answer to the article format and when to use Lord/Baron is set out in detail at WP:Peer. Just as a friendly headsup you said on the talk there "If it were so, that Baron is comment then you would have written "and second wife Baroness Anne Grey" rather than "and second wife Lady Anne Grey". Under no circumstances can the form Baroness forename surname be used in the UK (though it can for many European titles) Lady forename surname is fine as long as you are talking about the daughter of an earl or higher (or LG/LT) but not the wife or holder of a peerage. All the best Garlicplanting (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Cromwell
What's so bad about these sources? You're not an ignorant, so what's the issue? You're the one removing without explanation.
 * George Edward Cokayne, editor, The Complete Baronetage, 5 volumes (no date (c. 1900); reprint, Gloucester, U.K.: Alan Sutton Publishing, 1983), volume I, pages 16 and 28.
 * G.E. Cokayne; with Vicary Gibbs, H.A. Doubleday, Geoffrey H. White, Duncan Warrand and Lord Howard de Walden, editors, The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant, new ed., 13 volumes in 14 (1910-1959; reprint in 6 volumes, Gloucester, U.K.: Alan Sutton Publishing, 2000), volume 1, page 1282, volume II, page 436 and volume III, page 555.

Also, why the removal of the mentions to thepeerage.com? Should I mention the books instead of the site? And what's the big deal about geneall.net? LoveActresses (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

PS: About the Joan Tudor thing, read Jasper Tudor for the reported connection. LoveActresses (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

G.M.-Cupertino
I see your point, but that IP is in a different country than any previous GMC IP address. I'll have to watch it a while longer before acting.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

War of 1812
I had to revert Ronald again yesterday, same old song and dance. I do give him credit for consistency however.Tirronan (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Cut&paste move from Henrietta Anne Stuart to Princess Henrietta of England
(response to your question on User talk:Anthony_Appleyard)
 * Was this a recent cut and past move (after my first warning (18 August 2010 ) to user:LouisPhilippeCharles) not to make these moves or an old one? From the edit history it looks like it was made in July this year is that correct? BTW Anthony I much appreciate the work you've done cleaning up after user:LouisPhilippeCharles. -- PBS (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The cut-and-paste move was about a year old, and is was done user:LouisPhilippeCharles. This article has a long history of being vandalized, improperly moved, cut&paste, and all that, see Talk:Princess Henrietta of England. I spent a lot of time fixing up all sorts of corruptions, more than 3 years ago, and it is frustrating to see that it had happened again; someone needs to keep a close watch on this article I guess JdH (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Targetted Killing
Help get assassination into it, if not the other way arround!93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

NOR
Philip, for future reference, if you want to discuss a change at NOR, please do it on the talk page, not in edit summaries referring people to some other guideline. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 11:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * When two regular editors of a guideline object to your removal of material from it (in this case WP:W2W), I can't see the point of continuing to revert. Please discuss your proposal on the talk page. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 11:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles moving pages w/o 24 hour notice
On the 8 November you (again) posted on his talk page, "In future if you want to make a page move that you think is uncontroversial you must announce you intent to move a page on the talk page of the article 24 hours before you make the move." He has already resumed making un-notified, unilateral moves here and here and here and here and here. In fact, it appears that the moves have never stopped and are being increased incrementally. FactStraight (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note this unilateral move made without prior notice or consultation. FactStraight (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Scottish Marches
Philip, I redirected Scottish Marches because I completed a merge. All the content that was there is at Anglo-Scottish border. I don't see any evidence that Scottish Marches is anything but another word for the border region. After all, all three articles that I merged (Border Country, Anglo-Scottish Border, and Scottish Marches) said exactly that.

I may, however be wrong. If you can demonstrate that Scottish Marches means something different and distinct from the border regions, I'd be willing to go along with keeping an article, but not with that content. The article needs to explain why Scottish Marches is different. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  02:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth II
Somehow I missed the fascinating discussion about the Elizabeth II decision earlier this year, and I notice you were not involved either. In case you haven't read it, it might of some interest to you; here is the link. The impressive recent shift in consensus from favoring consistency with specific guidelines to favoring disambiguation only when necessary is exemplified in this discussion. My concern is it is not yet reflected in policy. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A request
(Copied from SlimVirgin's talk)

You wrote: "When two regular editors of a guideline object to your removal of material from it (in this case WP:W2W), I can't see the point of continuing to revert. Please discuss your proposal on the talk page."

I presume that you are not saying that they own it? If we we the number of edits to the page and the talk pages:
 * DCGeist project page ~283 talk page ~175
 * PBS talk project page 25 talk page    ~124
 * DocKino project 27 talk page ~34

I would seem to me that I must be a regular editor that page as well! You say "I can't see the point of continuing to revert." They are not the ones reverting my edit, It is you who did so apparently without reading the talk page before doing so if your comments in the history are to be explained "please discuss on talk!" and "(two people have objected, so pls discuss further)" with no explanation in the section were it has been discussed before you made the reverts. To date of the three editors who have reverted my edit there has been one response in the relevant talk page section, and no follow up to the questions I asked. I have waited 3 1/2 days for DocKino to respond on the talk page in the appropriate section, but having reverted with the comment "the edit summary makes clear that you do not understand what a euphemism is." there has been no further comment. To date the majority of the people who have spoken in the section have not objected to the change, so please do me the curtsey to read what I have written in the section Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (words to watch) -- PBS (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If three of the page's regular editors have reverted you—and they are people who fully understand the issuesw—it seems obvious that there's no consensus, and therefore you shouldn't keep inserting the change. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 13:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If they are regular editors and as as you say "people who fully understand the issues" then they need to explain their POV on the talk page. I have waited 3 1/2 days for DocKino to respond on the talk page in the appropriate section reverting DK's revert after such a wait is not unreasonab le. From your first revert it was clear that you reverted without bothering to look at the talk page. If you had put a comment there after reverting then I would have responded to it, but you did not. I think you need to consider very carefully what you are saying here, as it seems to imply that you would never reinsert an edit that was reverted when a regular editor to a page reverts it and does not justify the revert on the talk page. -- PBS (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Philip, you revert too much, particularly on content and style guidelines, where you have somewhat fixed ideas not shared by many. I really urge you to reconsider your approach. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Philip, I'm posting our previous discussion here so that it's in one place. If the situation continues with you reverting and arguing tendentiously, particularly at policies and guidelines, I'm afraid I'm going to consider further dispute resolution. We've had a situation for years where you strike up positions that have the tendency to halt article or policy development. You revert a great deal, including against clear consensus. You argue at length on talk in ways that are often unclear, and when the discussion ends because people have said all there is to say, you start reverting again to force them to continue to respond. My being forced to post an RfC at the MoS over where to place ref tags last month, because you alone have been reverting against consensus for years, was a waste of everyone's time and energy.

There was a discussion about this last month at AN/I, which I had hoped would cause you to reconsider, but apparently it has not. Your reverting yet again at W2W followed by your revert at WP:PLAGIARISM today,   in response to not getting your own way at W2W,  was disruptive and POINTy. The disruption is especially unfortunate given the recent consequences of the lack of clarity surrounding plagiarism, and several people are trying to deal with it by making our policies clearer. Yet you as always are trying to stand in the way. I'm therefore asking you again please to think about the way you approach these issues and other editors. I'm very happy to work with you if we can do so constructively. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 00:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * SV have you read Sauce for the goose is (not) sauce for the gander? If you revert one guideline stating there is no consensus, how is it that you then do not apply the same rules to changes that you make to another one? -- PBS (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Please take the point. This is not about any one article or policy, but about behaviour going back years. You editing disruptively. You stand in the way of good writing and clarity. You post on talk in a way that people find difficult to follow, and it can go on for weeks or even months. You argue against the ordinary use of ordinary words. It's an incredible time sink, and I can't tell you how depressing it is to have to respond to. If it continues I'm going to take the next step in the dispute resolution process, because I don't know what else to do. All I can do now is appeal to you to turn things around so that it won't be necessary. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * All of the points Slim makes are well evidenced, Philip. I will just add what strikes me as the most disturbing element of your misbehavior: the repeated demands that editors with whom you disagree "explain" their position and the repeated, blatantly false claims that they have not already done so. Very simply, your default approach to Talk page disputes is either (a) oblivious to a dysfunctional degree or (b) simply dishonest, thus in bad faith, thus violating our core principles. Two observations and two serious questions for you:


 * The fact that someone has failed to convince you of the merit of their position does not mean that they have failed to adequately explain it. Do you understand that or do you not?


 * The fact that you feel very passionately about your position is irrelevant to whether your position deserves to win out within Wikipedia's system for resolving disagreements, which favors the status quo and makes the attainment of policy-minded consensus necessary for altering it when there is a dispute. Do you understand that or do you not?—DCGeist (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Philip, it is clear to me that your reversion practice is out of step with the community. Will you please take notice of what people are saying? This has been going on for a long time. Tony   (talk)  07:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

ODNBweb & doi
Following your comment at WT:WP DNB, I have changed ODNBweb to use a URL that does go via dx.doi.org. This would be easy to change back at any point, so I'm prepared to try it out. I have seen instances where the redirection to the Oxford DNB site seems to take a little while - an appreciable moment, one could say. So I'm wondering whether this is to be expected, i.e. a time cost of doing it this way. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

REFPUNC Discussion
Dear PBS: You might want to check out this discussion regarding issues concerning WP:PAIC and MOS:REFPUNC. I know your contribution to the discussion would be welcomed. See also here; here; and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(footnotes)#Proposed_update_per_CMoS_16th_Ed. here]. The newest proposal seems to be to update the MOS and REFPUNC to reflect the 16th edition of the Chicago Manual of Style. Best regards. Saebvn (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Assassination
Not sure where the "two reliable sources added" were added at, but it wasn't in the edit I saw. Therefore it has been reverted.  N419 BH  07:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see the addition of any sources in this diff; to the contrary, I see the removal of three. This is why I reverted the edit. Perhaps I am reading the wiki-markup incorrectly?  N419 BH  08:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the clarification. How about we just quote the source? I think the law dictionary definition fits in most easily with the prose of the article, and it agrees with the Oxford dictionary. I deleted the duplicate reference of Merriam-Webster. Not sure what the Princeton source is, it's a bit of an odd website when you go to it. To use the secondary definition from Merriam Webster seems a bit pov-ish, but obviously it's a politically charged article. Thanks again for clarifying!  N419 BH  08:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And ✅. I included the merriam webster secondary definition as well. Let's see how long it takes to get reverted... N419 BH  08:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

User:LouisPhilippeCharles violates 3RR
Despite your blocking him for a month and then lifting the block in return for a promise of good behavior, he went right back to the edit war. When you protected that page, he took the war to her sisters' pages, where he has now reverted me and another poster who object to his reversions of footnoted data. Please see diff here FactStraight (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In light of the action taken in response to this dif, no doubt you will understand my perception that you are, yet again, retro-actively modifying your disciplinary actions in ways which seem to favor one side of a dispute while becoming increasingly stringent toward the side which seeks to abide by your instructions. Please be fair. FactStraight (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Francis Fane
Hi Philip

The DNB is clear that it was Francis Fane (dramatist) who was knighted at the 1661 coronation of King Cheles II. I have made a few changes and need to make more to clarify this and other issues, e.g. the Francis Fane (dramatist) article didn't even link back to his father's article (it does now). My only interest in all this was a bit of casual disambiguation for some light relief.

Plucas58 (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi again

Having looked at my amendment I see that I myself had caused all the confusion, misled by the Royal Society site who have the 1661 date for the knighthood of Francis Fane (royalist). It seems that both father Francis Fane (royalist) and son Francis Fane (dramatist) were knighted at the coronations of King Charles, one at KC I and the other in 1661 at KC II. I have reversed out my unfortunate error. There are other mysteries though-- the Royal Society claim to have ejected Francis Fane Snr from the society in 1682 after his postulated death in 1681. And the son seems more deserving of RS membership than the father. I wonder if the RS have identified the wrong man as their fellow. Plucas58 (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure whether you saw the changes I made to the previous comment before you replied. One thing was that the Royal Society state (presumably wrongly) that Francis the Royalist was knighted 1661. Now you have pointed out that you are the writer of these two articles I will come back to you with anything I come across on the subject before using it. But, as I said, mine was only a passing interest. I am working through the Royal Society fellows and had reached letter F.

Plucas58 (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:D - review of changes
I'm leaving this note on the talk pages of three editors whose work, particularly in the area of policy/guidelines, I particularly respect as being thoughtful and clear, though we don't always agree: User:Hesperian, User:Kotniski, and User:Philip Baird Shearer.

Hi, if you have some time I would appreciate a critical review of a series of edits I've made to WP:D as summarized in this diff. Of course, it's easier to follow by comparing the original version, to the current version. My goal was to bring clarity in meaning to the page, not to change the intended (or only reasonable) meaning of any of it. I know that clarity in meaning is an area in which you excel, so if you could make sure I didn't screw up, I would appreciate it. There has been some concern expressed at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation that my edits have amounted to significant change in meaning, and I've done my best to address those concerns. If you agree to do this review, you might want to read that first to get some perspective. Anyway, thank you very much for considering. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Württemberg
When directly quoting a source, it's appropriate to stick with whatever spelling they use, of course (possibly with a gloss to clarfy that Wirtemberg is the same place as Württemberg). But as different sources may use different spellings, it makes sense for the main body of the article to use the spelling that's been agreed for the WP article throughout, so as to avoid confusing the reader about whether or not different spellings actually represent the same place. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

LPC
OK, I see what the issue is. So if he's serious about doing editing, he could very easily use notepad to create whatever new text he wants, go into edit mode on his talk page, post his work, and hit "review" to be sure the syntax is good. Once done, he could back out of edit mode. A little bit of a nuisance, but not much. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding your comments on my talk page... my thought exactly. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Last stand
I got careless and added my own opinion into the Last stand article. I won't be offended if you remove my last edit, in fact please do. I got interested in last stands because I recently finished the Battle of Tarvis (1809) with the Predil Blockhouse episode. In my opinion, the French probably killed any survivors, but I couldn't include that because the sources are silent on that. So, yes I should know better about sourcing. Djmaschek (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you backed out my edit. That's OK. Djmaschek (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Berne Airport
Hi, we've actually a discussion about the name of Berne Airport, your point of view would be appreciated :) Ngagnebin (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

LPC avoiding block
I reported him here Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756. - dwc lr (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. Apparently, unbenownst to anyone on English Wikipedia, he was also doing unjustified page moves on the Italian and German Wikis, evoking the across-the-board block that prevented him from storing up the changes on his talk page that he uploaded en masse whenever his blocks were lifted, and of which he so piteously complained latterly. Thanks, PBS, for following up with research on what was, for me, the straw that broke the camel's back: his insistence on mis-naming and mis-editing the Hesse-Rheinfels-Rotenburg mess. FactStraight (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked editor working on article content on own talk page
I've never encountered this situation before, but just thinking out loud here, why do you perceive this as a problem? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The answer, I suppose, would be somewhere within a guideline on what blocked users are allowed to do - which, unfortunately, I am unable to find. But I'm curious also. I always thought that non-disruptive activity was permitted while blocked. Unless there's been a ruling somewhere that any activity by that user, while blocked, is deemed to be disruptive. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was directed to WP:BLANKING, which doesn't seem to be quite it, but somewhere near that section it says that user pages are not to be used for things that look like articles. I don't know if that's what the admin here is using for specific justification in this case. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
Response to your post. Please read: Dear Sir, Actually there is no warning here, no reference sustaining repeated ad-hoc removals, no proof an edit was made in 'good faith'; no nothing. You have also mis-read the Wiki references, which do not support erroneous ad-hoc removals, no matter how much 'in good faith' a vandaliser might claim them to be. So this non-warning will be treated in the form it was delivered. I will remind you, that the unreasoned removal of pertinant referenced information which meets wikipedia's standards of reference, is, in fact, 'vandalism' and thus your response: highly ideosyncratic. I made no personal accusation so your 'warning' is wholly without merit. If you choose to take on the role of the defendant, then you may defend your actions or not and the editing community can judge for themselves. Meanwhile, if you support the vandalising of contributions, please expect to be so notified.

I would remind you of your obligation to remain impartial and unbiased, both in your edits and in your dealings with facts. Sir, your disappointing choice, to personalise this issue, has been noted. Cacadores (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Dunch and Rumps
Have responded on my own page Motmit (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Beware using AWB on quotations!
Just as a comment, I see you've replaced cousin-German with cousin-german on Battle of Garbharry‎ and Battle of Dail-Riabhach‎ among others. In both these cases it is an original source that is using the capitalised form, and it really should be left like that. No harm in wikilinking it, but you might want to have a look back through your AWB edits to check for cases like this where you are corrupting the capitalisation of direct quotations. I know that in both cases that the articles really need rewriting and should probably lose much of the quotes altogether, but that's for another time, for the moment we might as well keep the quotes accurate.... Le Deluge (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I was reverting changes made previously Battle of Garbharry (diff 6 July 2009), Battle of Dail-Riabhach‎ (diff 4 September 2007). -- PBS (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems that some editors have not realised:

":: The English words "german" (as in "cousin-german") and the adjective "germane" are not connected to the name for the country, but come from the Latin germanus, "genuine"."

- Names of Germany


 * -- PBS (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Drogheda
Hi, I made a reply and some changes at Siege of Drogheda. Regards Jdorney (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Bosnian Genocide
Please keep the introduction intact or discuss it before changing. It only states the facts (legal facts): "The term Bosnian Genocide is used to refer either to three legally validated genocides that occurred during the Bosnian war -- Srebrenica massacre (Prosecutor v Radislav Krstic), Doboj genocide (Prosecutor v Nikola Jorgic), and Foca genocide (Prosecutor v Novislav Djajic), all committed by Bosnian Serb forces -- or to the ethnic cleansing campaign that took place throughout areas controlled by the Bosnian Serb Army during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War." Yahalom Kashny (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Evesham
Hi. A Worcestershire Project page has now been taken on by a reviewer for Good Article after a very long wait. Several points need addressing, but the page has not been rejected as an immediate fail. If you  have time, please see Talk:Evesham, and if you can address any of the points listed, I'm sure that between us we can get it through to GA. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

How to title an article
In order to address the argument that without specific naming conventions article titling would be chaotic and unpredictable, I've attempted to describe the process of determining a title that clearly shows that usually specific naming conventions are not needed. I'm asking a few select individuals to look at it before I open it for general review at WT:TITLE.

If you could take a few minutes to review it and let me know what you think, I would really appreciate it. Do you think we could incorporate this or something like it into WP:TITLE? Thanks. Here is the link: User:Born2cycle/how2title. Please leave your comments on the talk page of that subpage, User talk:Born2cycle/how2title. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Indef Full Protect on Landgravine Caroline of Hesse-Rotenburg
Hi Philip. I was reviewing pages that are indefinitely fully protected in case pages are left that way inadvertently. I came across Landgravine Caroline of Hesse-Rotenburg which you fully protected at the end of 11/2010 to stop an edit war. Since action seems to have died down on the article, I was wondering if it might be appropriate to unprotect the article and possibly just block warring users (LouisPhilippeCharles and FactStraight) if they return to old habits? Coming here rather than WP:RFPP as you are the protecting admin. I'm not an admin, so feel free to unprotect if you feel that's appropriate. Hope you're having a great day! -- Gnowor TC 23:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

For Philip: Sources for Judgements

 * For Philip and Fairview: Dear Philip and Fairview, we should not bother whether or not genocide occurred in Doboj and Foca (I do not have a copy of full judgement). We should only state the facts that these cases resulted in genocide judgements. They are legally tested cases of genocides. I base my facts on the following sources, which both of you are welcome to examine: Source #1 for Nikola Jorgic New York Times, 27 September 1999, Source #2 for Nikola Jorgic The Deseret News 26 September 1997, Source #1 for Novislav Djajic The Deseret News, 23 May 1997, Source #2 for Novislav Djajic which speaks that the court found that genocide was confined to the administrative district of Foca, see Prosecutor v. Krstic paragraph 589, Source #1 for Maksim Sokolovic Daily Union, 29 November 1999, Source # 2 for Maksim Sokolovic New York Times, 30 November 1999. 24.82.163.223 (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose only in England...
where understatement is king, would three out of three criteria equal "fairly conclusive"!--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * More investigation would likely not be conclusive, IMO, therefore is not likely to be "needed," but this is a philosophical point not worth arguing about (that is, if one imagines that an absolute determination is often obtainable from among the available options, then "is needed" would indeed sound right, but in practice such finitely obtained, happy results are rare, when this question arises, in practice, I think. In other words, if ALL THREE of Google Books, Google, and the sources to an article agree, why in aich-eeh-double-el would somebody be consulting the guideline in the first place? only to find that it says, "Well, it MIGHT be right to follow all three out of three, but that's only reasonably conclusive"? Lol!)--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Genocide denial
I accidentally hit enter before I could finish my edit summary.
 * The article titles of those names (e.g. Slobodan Milošević) contain diacritics why should they be removed just because they are mentioned in another article.
 * The italicization of Living Marxism, The Guardian and others is in compliance with the manual of style.
 * Peter Erlinder's charges are still relevant to the article. Perhaps the section title should be modified or a new section made.

Also what's your opinion on adding Milorad Dodik to the article? -- ◅PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 19:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Fairfax (Walton)
Refimprove is supposed to go on article, not talk pages. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

waiting
Philip, I am waiting for your response at Bosnian Genocide article24.82.163.223 (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Attack aircraft
Hi, could you take a look at Talk:Ground attack aircraft? --Kubanczyk (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Lord Selkirk
Hi, no I don't have a reference for that I'm afraid. Selcrigge or Seleskirche etc. are all Scots variants for Selkirk, however, there not being a standardised spelling in Scots then. (come to think of it there isn't one now!) Furthermore, it ties in with his being listed directly below his father and brother. Good work on the Act of Grace article btw. Brendandh (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson
Hello, Philip Baird Shearer ! Some editors recently made this changes to the article to improve the POV, but were reverted. I would like to know if you would be interested in giving your opinion. This is the link. All help is needed. Thank your very much and kind regards, Tobby72 (talk) 08:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Latimer or Latymer?
I noticed that this page Baron Latymer is linked to Baron Latimer -- Exactly what is the difference between Latymer and Latimer? If they are the same, why are there two different pages? Also, that would out the people whom are being claimed as the current de jure Barons on the Baron Latimer page (David Verney, 21st Baron Willoughby de Broke is being called the current de jure Baron) as the barony remained in abeyance after John Neville, the 4th Baron Latimer had no male heirs, until 1913, when the abeyance was terminated in favour of Francis Money-Coutts, who became the fifth Baron. He was the only son of the Reverend James Drummond Money and his wife Clara Maria Burdett, fourth daughter of Sir Francis Burdett, 5th Baronet, and claimed the peerage as a descendant of Frances, eldest daughter of the Hon. Lucy Neville, third daughter of the fourth Baron Latymer/Latimer. As of 2009, the title is held by the fifth Baron's great-great-grandson, the 9th Baron who succeeded his father in 2003. The barony of Latimer/Latymer was handed to the Neville family, to George Nevill, 1st Baron Latymer who was summonded to Parliament as Baron Latimer in 1432. As stated, it went into abeyance after the 4th Baron Latimer.. could you explain this to me and if there is a huge mix up how can we fix it? I noticed that there was a huge addition made by User:Plucas58 and he seems to be the one who added most to all of the Barons Willoughby of Broke with NO sources, just tudorplace entries which say nothing about them being the de jure Barons of Latimer. The article doesn't even acknowledge that if the two baronies are the same, that in 1913 it was terminated in favor of Francis Money-Coutts, 5th Baron Latymer -- Lady Meg (talk) 07:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Richard Grace again
Hi Philip,

Thanks for your post. I have added the reference to the birth date of Richard Grace. I tried to reference 'Burke, 1863' within my note, but cant seem to do it....Maybe you will have better luck?

I hope it is all in order.

CheersMgracee (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Odo, Count of Champagne
Thanks Philip. I'll have a look at your edits and try and add some references.Mgracee (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Thomas Cobham, 5th Baron Cobham of Sterborough
Could you please take a look at this Talk:Thomas Cobham, 5th Baron Cobham of Sterborough -- I don't know how to delete the page from which is was moved from Reginald de Cobham, 5th Baron Cobham. Also, it is noted -- but I just wanted to bring it up again that random people are creating these baron pages and then creating pages for ALL of the barons without ANY sources and many mistakes are found -- as this one was -- someone named the page incorrectly and then didn't put the correct information in the article or the father's article! This is really getting quite taxing and this incorrect information spreads online like a wild fire as people take wikipedia as fact. -- Lady Meg (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Robert Willoughby, 1st Baron Willoughby de Broke
The basic facts would have come from accredited sources www.thepeerage.com and leighrayment.com supplemented by confirmatory data from elsewhere. They were my first articles and not strong on citatios.

Plucas58 (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I notice you had a message from a Lady Meg which, apart from scorning my contributions, suggested she was unable to distinguish between the Latymers and the Latimers. The two articles about the two families make it completely clear they are unrelated. Peter Lucas Plucas58 (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Further to your deliberations there is this site - http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/WilloughbyB1491.htm - which covers the ground admirably.

Peter Plucas58 (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

John Ashworth (scientist)
That's unbelievable. Even using an image clearly identified as another scientist! I can't believe I fell for it.

I'm so glad you caught it. Jheald (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Account hacked
Apparently my Wikipedia account has recently been hacked: Anytime I look at a User's page, his IP or handle disappears and is replaced by my own, so that my account information comes up instead of that of the account I'm trying to "see". Example here and here (I don't know if the hack is visible when viewed by others: if you see your own name following "User:" and before "Namespace" rather than "FactStraight", then the hack can only be seen from inside my account). Unless a virus is attacking Wiki accounts randomly, I think we can guess who would have an interest in seeking this kind of revenge (in addition to his increasingly using random IPs to edit the usual royalty articles). But where do I report the problem? FactStraight (talk) 10:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

English national identity reference
Hi. Just to let you know that I've replaced the reference you provided supporting the claim about a resurgence of English national identity at English people because I felt that an SNP politician wasn't necessarily the most NPOV source. I hope this is OK, and thanks for you effort trying to find a reference. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, since you added it again, I've raised the issue here. Your thoughts would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hack?
It would appear that a certain person came in and revamped a page which was perfectly fine -- and added self-published sources and the tudorplace.org as references. The person must have edited 15 times under the ancestry section. John Nevill, 3rd Baron Latymer. Would you happen to know this person.. he is VERY active on here and must have changed over 20 pages today. User talk:Gtommy17 -- Lady Meg (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors
Hi Philip! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Wellington retreat at Waterloo
Yes, I doubt that Wellington would have retreated through the forest of Soignes. However, I also doubt that Wellington was being 100% truthful in claiming that he would have retreated towards the Prussians in the event of defeat. Such a plan doesn't account for the weakness in his left flank, nor the great strength ofhis right, nor the reserves posted at Halle. Unless he somehow planned to link up with the Prussians via another route...

The point I was trying to make was that pinning the allied right gave Napoleon the opportunity to defeat the allied army in detail. d'Erlon's offensive along the left flank was only one part of the plan. In numerous battles (e.g. Castiglione, Bautzen, Vauchamps), Napoleon attacked his enemy's flank before committing his reserves. Had d'Erlon seized Mont St Jean, Wellington would have been cut off from the Prussians. And had Reille's pinning attack materialised, Napoleon would have been able to unleash the guard against the Duke's right along his line of retreat to the sea. Wellington would not have been able to retreat towards the Prussians, the forest of Soignes wouldn't have be an option...all he could've done was retreat to his right, exactly along the path of Napoleon's main attack. It explains why Napoleon desired the attack to commence on his left, not his right. The arrival of the Prussians denied Napoleon from executing such a plan.-- Guard Chasseur (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Henry Percy, 5th Earl of Northumberland
Hello Philip. I have highlighted certain problems with a paragraph you added to "Henry Percy, 5th Earl of Northumberland" (section: Biography). Refer that article's discussion page (section: Early Life). Webrobate (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Robert Venables
Your revert of "Robert Venables" appeared funny when I was looking on the recent changes page for some reason I don't recall. The content looked funny as well and not worded correctly on the surface.I read you explanation on the editor's talk page of why you did your revert, and see your point somewhat so I changed it back. I was impressed by your explanation why you were reverting their changes. Few go to such effort. Jackfork (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges Jackfork (talk) 03:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Associação Académica de Coimbra
Hey, I just wanted to change the article's name because it should coincide with all the other names from the sister pages. Don't think I insisted to change it just to defy you or anything of that sort. Thanks for the tips on how to request a move, but I don't know how long it would take nor how the procedures are like, etc. Again thanks.  T i b u l l u s  call me |undefined 21:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

General Nansouty A-Class review
Hello! I've put up the article about General Nansouty for A-Class Review here. Your review would be much appreciated. Best,--Alexandru Demian (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, maybe next time then. Cheers!--Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The Ark and Dove
Hey, would you be willing to look at this? Talk:The Ark (ship), thanks. -- Lady Meg (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense information
I notice you're involved with the Genocide article. Did you see this ? Slight Smile  02:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

WT:NOR - Other things
When you commented were you aware of a previous comment


 * "Kotniski was protecting a section that started 15:20, 22 February 2011, from disruption that started 15:34, 22 February 2011."

75.47.145.84 (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are a blocked or banned user then please go away. If you are not either blocked or banned then please use a user account when making comments about policy pages and their associated talk pages. Perhaps a name with Richardson in it would be suitable. -- PBS (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"The storm I think shows an ownership problem with this article"
I think you should either cross that comment out, or do something about it - ie. put your money where your mouth is. I will respond to almost all criticism of articles I write but when admins make snide comments like that I tend not to respond positively, or in this case, at all. Parrot of Doom 08:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Redoubts
I've been nursing versions of the Belgian and Swiss National Redoubts in my userspace - you're welcome to use what suits you from User:Acroterion/National Redoubt (Belgium) and User:Acroterion/National Redoubt (Switzerland). You might also want to look at Fortress Saint-Maurice for one component, for context and references.  Acroterion  (talk)  02:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

John Yeamans
I'm sorry I didn't mean to be offensive when I zapped what I assumed was a long haphazard accumulation of notes and references. But now I know they are important to you, why is it they are so complex and what do they mean? I'm actually quite interested in the subject of the article. Eddaido (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I do realise that as you read this three-quarters of your mind will be running through your personal library of stock responses to select one or more to copy and paste under this but would it not be more rewarding to you for you to read just what you are "replying" to? Eddaido (talk) 07:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Borodino
Well it took longer than I thought but, we got GA status for the article. Thought you'd like to know.

Best to youTirronan (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Francis Fane (dramatist)
Hi PBS, just to point out the logic you have displayed on this talk page is truly magnificently faulty! Eddaido (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sam Browne
Hi PBS - thank you for the appreciation on Thomas Witherings. I was about to develop Samuel Browne MP for Bedfordshire in 1660 when I found his dates from Leigh Rayment match your judge - though your edits don't mention this. I shall move on to the next on the assumption he is the same. Regards Motmit (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sorting this out and keeping in touch on it. Regards Motmit (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Reinhard Heydrich
PBS: I added MiszaBot I but I have not been able to get the archive box running correctly with the old archives located therein. Can you look into it when you get a chance? Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the assistance. Kierzek (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

John Wilde (jurist) / Wylde
first ref: The General Armory of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, ... - Page 1143 item 1 = himself item 6 = his wife

If you search in the online ODNB on John Wylde it turns him straight up. Can I rest my case? cheers Eddaido (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi again PBS. I see I am mistaken to believe my case proven to Your  satisfaction. I will come back to you right here on that matter.

Regarding your choice of published genealogical material for references in citations. In general the newer the publication (if printed and published and by a recognized authority on the subject) the more accurate the information. Those people are very sensitive to informed criticism / peer review. While it may satisfy a thirst for a matching citation to link to something, er, antique it is often hopelessly misleading (if apparently charming) to a Wikipedia reader and to make the kind of "adjustment" you have carried out in Fane above is to act irresponsibly. Multiple repeat publications and the passage of time do not change the inaccuracies of those lovely old aspirations to whatever.

There is, in just the same way, good reason for material differences between editions of the DNB. To repeat the untruths of the original misleads Wikipedia readers in just the same way as I have described in the previous paragraph. It is so easy to check with the updated version while copying/pasting from the old one it is surely, as I have pointed out, irresponsible not to do so. Eddaido (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Bosnian Genocide Talk page Archiving
Thanks for your message. I'm not sure I really understand much more, but thanks for trying to explain. I presume you spotted my message to Wwoods. My reaction is similar to yours, it would have been helpful if he'd left a message before going ahead, but maybe he thought it would get lost in the midst of all our turmoils! Opbeith (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

About Bedlam Furnace
You've changed the name of this article. I have no information about this Company but I need of it. Can You tell me why they called Madeley Wood Company by name Bedlam Furnace? Please, talk to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blast furnace chip worker ( • contribs) 18:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank You for your answer. I am sorry I've confused You. I really am. Forgive me for doing that. But "renaming" or "redirection" were not main things in my message to You. Possibly You have already understood I'm not English naitive speaker and I'm not from England. But in this moment I am writing article about Ironbridge Gorge and its places of interest. And I would to know why Madeley Wood Company was also called Bedlam Furnace? Well, if You can and want answer my question (or give some links) please do it. If You do not want do that, well, I am sorry for trouble. talk
 * Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blast furnace chip worker (talk • contribs) 18:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:British Raj RfC
Hello Philip, Do you think it is time to close the templates RfC on Talk:British Raj? It's been a month. There is a similar RfC on Talk:Presidencies and provinces of British India page. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  12:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Wikisource1911Enc citation
I have restored Wikisource1911Enc citation to its previous behavior independent of 1911. See Template talk:Wikisource1911Enc citation for my rationale. In short, it is the only way of avoiding the categories 1911 deals in when they are inappropriate. This change also involved changes to two redirects, Wikisource1911Enc Citation and Cite EB1911. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Marquis de la Eirron is back
As someone who has crossed swords with and banned sockpuppet (thanks to your actions) you may be interested to know that he is back -  - with no sign of remorse and making exactly the same edits as before. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 22:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Bawtree
I have put Bawtree up for deletion - it duplicates Bawtry. Perhaps I should have read your talk page first, and given you the chance to delete it yourself, but it appeared to be vandalism. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Bawtree
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Bawtree, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 09:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Your 3RR complaint
Hello PBS. I've been looking at this report: WP:AN3. By my count there were only three reverts in a 24-hour period. Your point, I assume, is that you believe User:Parrot of Doom is showing ownership behavior at Guy Fawkes Night. You think he won't allow this article to go in any new direction, and he reverts your attempts to revise it. Would this be a correct assessment of your view? If so, as an admin I'm sure you are aware of the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. By submitting a complaint to 3RR, you are requesting admin action. My question is, is there something that any of us 3RR admins can reasonably do? 3RR closers are not eager to block long-time contributors, unless they have completely lost their minds. That would not seem to apply in this case. Some kind of a compromise, or a wider discussion, seems necessary. Can you say or do anything that could help to move this situation ahead? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Since I left the above comment, the case has been closed by NuclearWarfare. But see my reply to your latest question at User talk:EdJohnston. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that the main discussion has now moved to User talk:Parrot of Doom. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes Night
I almost laughed out loud, your "18th century" and "21st century" headers are such a neat way to underline the huge gaps. Moonraker2 (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * They're also rather stupid. Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Ey - give the Guy a break. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes
Philip, I'm not sure what's going on there, but it looks as though PoD might be trying to get the page to FA. If he is, the best thing is to let him get on with it, because he's a good writer and researcher, and every intervention from others means he has to take time away from thinking about sources and structure to replying. If you disagree with the direction it's taking, the best thing is to make your concerns known if the page ever gets to FAC, but please do let it get there. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 00:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

List of heads by country
Based on your participation in WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries#Territories, I believe you'd also be interested to share your opinion and ideas at Talk:List of current heads of state and heads of government. 203.198.25.115 (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Vorbunker
PBS, I just wrote my first article. I decided after well over 4,000+ edits to give it a try. When you get a chance I would ask that you review it for me. Thanks, Cheers- Kierzek (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles
Latest sock is User:85.226.41.143. Given the massive documentation of LouisPhilippeCharles's ongoing violations of editing while blocked, creating & still using numerous socks, international Wiki blocks for various disruptions, continued posting of images without proper documentation, isn't it now appropriate to make the "indefinite block" a "permanent ban"? At present, even when his vandalisms are identified and socks blocked, it is haphazard whether or not the edits made using socks are reversed. FactStraight (talk) 05:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Balaghat District
Hi Philip; I have given up editing most India-related articles, so feel free to make any changes they need. Best, Tom Radulovich (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look then. In case you ever want to consult it, the Imperial Gazetteer is available online here: . It's a useful resource. Tom Radulovich (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Policies
Please stop reverting at policies and guidelines. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 05:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Template
Hi I am having troubles with your task you requested please join Discussion here and explain what the task is for after that I can retag all pages Petrb (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

And old friend...
An old friend of yours is back Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 16:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Death of Adolf Hitler
PBS-This article has been hit with a lot of vandalism lately. I know you are a administrator and would request that you consider putting a semi-protection on the article at least for 60 days. Thanks- Kierzek (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing at FAC
Your canvassing at FAC will not be tolerated; if you want to continue to participate there, stop it. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 13:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * PBS, please be a little less gung-ho when articles are at FAC. Regardless of who's in the right, a contentious and even brutal environment at FAC has a chilling effect that goes past that particular article and those particular editors.  Lots of reversions and AN3 threats can scare future nominators. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC/U discussion concerning you (Philip Baird Shearer)
Hello, Philip Baird Shearer. Please be aware that a user conduct request for comment has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry is located at Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer, where you may want to participate. Parrot of Doom 10:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Bautzen (1945)
You may be interested in looking at this article, which I've just finished expanding. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 00:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment
This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Issues with member
It seems to be that the editor Boleyn is using incorrect information and creating pages that are under the incorrect title. I have found two HUGE mistakes lately. One having to do with Thomas Burgh, 3rd Baron Burgh in which is was originally named Thomas Burgh, 7th Baron Strabolgi. I had to move the page and re-do it! I now find that she edited the page Kirton in Lindsey putting incorrect information which she quoted from a book -- only problem being it was not what was written in the book, it was completely wrong. She quotes that Catherine Parr and her second husband, the 3rd Baron of Gainsborough lived there -- er, incorrect and not even what it says in Porter's Katherine, the Queen. I corrected her info and put another source by it. I have the two books right here in front of me and I can tell you that what she quoted was completely false -- and I'm pretty sure that there is a snippet of Porter's book on Google ebooks which states the correct husband but does not have pg 55 -- it's blocked. To see what she originally put in there -- see Revision as of 13:19, 29 March 2011 -- should I address this person or leave it to you because I am really starting to get annoyed with her -- she doesn't use correct sources, quotes what's not even in the book, creates pages with titles that are incorrect, and is spreading the wrong information around Wiki. I'm frankly tired of cleaning up her mess (which seems to have to do with Catherine Parr and her husband's families). -- Lady Meg (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Admin tools
In view of the comments at the RFC, I wonder if you would please consider putting yourself up for recall. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  10:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Wellington Honours
Hello, I notice from Talk:Arms, titles, honours and styles of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington that you compiled a list of titles and orders received by the 1st Duke of Wellington, but notice that it has been quite some time since it was last pursued. I have been working on the main Wellington article, as well as 2 others (see below), extensively lately - hopefully to get some A, B, FA class articles on the ladder for this guy, given his importance in British/Irish/European history a couple of half-arsed Stubs or C-class articles just doesn't seem right. Do you have any plans to follow up preparing and publishing the list, or am I welcome to pick up the baton and continue to use it as I see fit? If so, do you have any suggestions or thoughts regarding how you had planned to utilise the list; they would be appreciated.

Thanks, Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh ''' (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Just a quick query - are all those marked with a red cross unconfirmed orders (ie whether they exist), or that you could not verify if he had received them? I'm not sure what the check/cross column fully represents, if you could explain it that would be helpful, so I can pick up where you left off. Also, do you want me to let me know once I've incorporated it into the article somehow, so you can have a look? Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh '''  (talk) 09:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, they weren't half pompous back then - you'd think it would be enough to simply identify Wellington on a Treaty using just his name and rank, without listing dozens of titles - talk about rubbing salt into French wounds. Thanks though, I'll see what I can do and shall gather some sources to cite, regarding his receiving orders, before knocking together a detailed section about them. Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh '''  (talk) 10:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

RFCU closure
Hello, Philip. I want to let you now that I have closed the RFCU at Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer. Here's hoping that this leads to good results in the future. --Orlady (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you like to provide some details on the flaws you found in my closing? --Orlady (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

/* Straw Poll for List of Countries Discussion */
There is a straw poll here for a discussion that you previously expressed an opinion in. --Taivo (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Berlin
PBS: a discussion has being going on as to the "Result box" and the words used to describe the results of the battle. Most recently, the tread: "Dissolution of Third Reich?" As the main author of the article, you may want to weigh in on the matter, and I would invite you to do so. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi PBS - good to hear from you. I know you had a bit of a rough time, but I'm glad to see you back. The Weymouth/Melcombe situation is a bit confusing as they are sometimes treated as separate and sometimes joint. Some of the other parliaments may be mixed up but I'm not too worried at the moment as I think it goes back to the same constituency. Regards Motmit (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

99.181.144.107
I've reverted your striking of 99.181.144.107's comments on the CRU RfC. This user has been here for a long time under a dynamic address. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Tory
In a historical context (as used in the 1700s, and especially as used in America in the 1700s) the term was a pejorative. "Loyalist" is more neutral in that context. And since both terms (Tory and Loyalist) are used fairly equally in sources, we should (and do) use the more neutral term. "Patriot", on the other hand, is used by a significant majority of sources (both contemporary and modern... both US and UK). And since this is the case, we should (and do) use the term "Patriot" despite the fact that more neutral terms exist. Blueboar (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hump footnotes
I completed the task you began upgrading the references and separated the final 17 citation/footnotes into citations and footnotes in The Hump. (I felt a little obligated since I wrote all the combinations to begin with, and you've inspired me to go back to other articles and do the same.) Since I used an assembly-line like method I went back and checked each change, but feel free to proofread. Thanx.--Reedmalloy (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Cerejota (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

John Bradshaw (judge)
I have copied the succession box that I added on to my own computer, so that I can add it again in die course, if necessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Sheriffs of London
Reply to:

''I see you have done a very good job on the article List of Sheriffs of London. I have been going through standardising the citations as much as I could. I decided that as you had started off using:

Noorthouck, John (1773). "Addenda: The Mayors and Sheriffs of London (to 1773)". A New History of London: Including Westminster and Southwark. pp. 889-893.

It would be easy to add citations to the earlier centuries. However the dates from 1189 to 1460 are one away from those that Noorthouck uses. Is this a transcription error or an intentional change? I ask this because no other source in the reference section seems to cover the period as thoroughly and the Revision as of 17:20, 27 July 2011, left two trailing years out of sequence which are still on the page:

1270 William Haddystoke, Anketyll de Alverne 1299 John de Stordforde, William de Stortforde

I have not gone a head and changed any of the dates as it is not clear to me if the current arrangement was intentional. -- PBS (talk) 09:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)''

Hi Philip

The date shift was intentional as every other reference seemed to be a year earlier than my source. But if it such a change is unethical it can be changed back.

The two out of sequence records (1270 and 1299) were there already but not listed in my source. Maybe they are valid, maybe not. They have no citations. I get this problem quite a bit when overlaying a complete list over a composite of individual records. The two could turn out to be MPs or something. Plucas58 (talk) 10:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

John Bramston, the younger
He was Knight of the Shire for Essex from 1660 and 1661, if not longer, following his move to Skreens, Essex because his wife had died in 1647. I can find no evidence (apart from DNB) that he was ever MP for Bodmin in the Long Parliament of 1640. See Bodmin (UK Parliament constituency) et al.

He was then returned MP for Maldon, Essex in 1678 and 1685. See Maldon (UK Parliament constituency) et al.

Plucas58 (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Wich date of the race is correct?
There are many links that containing several different dates of the race between Tom Thumb (locomotive) and the horse. Wich date is correct August 18 1830    or September 18 1830    or August 25 1829 ? If August 25 1829 is not the date of the race then there is a mistake in Wikipedia here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1829_in_rail_transport. Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
 Ron h jones (Talk) 23:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Clerfayt
Thanks. Now I'll know how to do a cite book. I never could figure that out. As I write more articles, I become more proficient. My oldest articles are not cited at all, though I tried to list the sources. Others are pretty sloppy. Slowly, I'm going back and fixing my old articles up (e.g., Jean Gabriel Marchand) so they meet B-class standards. The problem is that writing new articles is more fun than sprucing up old ones. Djmaschek (talk) 04:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Howdy
Just a hello buddy and a clap on the back for being a good guy.Tirronan (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Refs and Throckmortons
Hi PBS

Many thanks for those useful online references - I was having problems getting at HOP online and the Cockayne references always seemed to be given as offline. As I created all those MPs I saw a need for more civil war history by place so that Bristol one is good stuff. As for the Throckmortons, I set up the article with the full baronet name and title but some irritating little spoiler came along quoting MOS and renamed all the ones I had created. Had to spend ages sorting out the mess as far as I could. I think there is a strong case for changing the unhlepful and inconsistent policy on naming baronets. Regards Motmit (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Battle in Berlin
Hi, Philip Baird Shearer. I noticed you adding some improvements to the citations on the Battle in Berlin article. I have added citation templates to two citations in the article. If everything is properly formatted (including the addition of the ref=harv parameter), the citations in the Notes section will be clickable links down to the biography. Cool beans: I have recently discovered a script at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors that, once installed in your skin, will point out any errors in the Harvard set-up. For example, on Battle in Berlin, there are two books in the bibliography that are not actually cited in the article. Regards, --Dianna (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Bodiam Castle plan...
Just to say that the new plan looks stunning - nice work! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Derby House Committee
Woolrych's "Britain in Revolution" says (p. 352) that the Derby House Committee referred to the Committee for Irish Affairs which was set up in 1646 as a de facto executive to replace the Committee of Both Kingdoms, but at the moment the page redirects to the latter. I saw that you had redirected the page, so what is correct here? --81.111.208.250 (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I assume as you have not created a user account that you will look here. Please see :


 * I hope that explains it. -- PBS (talk) 00:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Histmerging from sandboxes into articles

 * Ref. User talk:Anthony Appleyard and Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive722. This is nearly always as asked by a user in Requested moves, and once or twice as asked by a user in my user talk page. I have rejected many such requests because of WP:Parallel histories, because, while the user was editing the sandbox page, other people were editing the main article. Sometimes when I have rejected such a request, the requesting user becomes persistent: see the long discussion at User talk:Anthony Appleyard. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes people put in uncontroversial-type move requests to move a user scratch page to an article-space name that did not exist before. If the scratchbox's topic looks anything like not notable, I change the move request to a discussed move request. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Green beret
Please see Talk:Green beret —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 01:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate articles?
Which one of these, John Cameron of Fassiefern or John Cameron of Fassifern, is correct? I suppose you should turn one into a redirect or delete it. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
ww2censor (talk) 02:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)