User talk:PBS/Archive 4

Archives
=Page four=
 * User talk:PBS/Archive 1
 * User talk:PBS/Archive 2
 * User talk:PBS/Archive 3

WP:RM
Thanks for the tips. That was my first WP entry.

--Jwbacin 05:01 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the ammendments I was getting a little confused, even having read the guidelines. Will make sure I keep the entries correct.

Davidkinnen 07:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Robert Thompson
I haven't read 'Head for the Hills', unfortunately. Most of my information comes from 'All the Way with JFK', which is an analysis of British policy in the region 1961-3. I wasn't sure what you meant by the extract you posted - that is whether it was just for informational purposes or whether you thought I'd misrepresented British involvement in some way. I don't really agree, for example, with Thompson's verdict on the support of the Labour government. Allow me to respond with a quote of my own - Dean Rusk to a British journalist, 1968:

"All we needed was one regiment. The Black Watch would have done. Just one regiment, but you wouldn't. Well, don't expect us to save you again. They can invade Sussex, and we wouldn't do a damned thing about it."

Harold Wilson's refusal to commit British troops to Vietnam was the most significant foreign policy decision of post-war Britain, after decolonisation. But then I would think that because I can't stop thinking about Iraq...

Anyway, ta for the insight.

--Mr impossible 11:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Regions of Chile
Hi Phil, can you have a look at Talk:Regions of Chile, I proposed some moves there to make article titles for South American subnational entities in general an Chilean regions in particular consistent. There was no oppose. It just bad mixture now and editors are stuck because they cannot move. I do not understand why it says "not moved, because no consensus". It could also be "moved because no oppose". Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * problem is solved Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Renaming Eastern Front (World War II)
I would appreciate your input at Talk:Eastern Front (World War II). Gdr 23:04, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

Yogurt
Thanks for the suggestions. By the time I read your message, however, the changes had already been made. bernlin2000 ∞ 23:23, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

It looks like this debate is going to deadlock, which I'm pretty surprised. It seems pretty cut and dry: "yogurt" is the most common spelling internationally, but obviously this is not a factor in deciding. People apparently prefer to debate over the linguistics... bernlin2000 ∞ 20:19, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Gustav II Adolf-vote
You'll have to pardon me for reformatting the vote, but it was just too oblique to be of any proper use. Please make your votes again, but stick to one vote per alternative and don't oppose the ones you don't support; it's just confusing.

Peter Isotalo 14:38, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Bombing of Dresden in World War II
I hope we can reach the compromise. My goal is for this article to became FA. It has had little activity recently, so it is not very vandal-prone, and I am sure we can create an improved, NPOV version based on my additions. I am not claiming my source or POV is perfect, but I do think I can help improve this article. The very fact is that it is not up to FAC standard, so we should try to bring it up to it. Btw, when reverting, please consider that not all info is POVed - how can you claim my additions to culture section are poved? :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * For your convinience, I repost my answer here: I have read the archives - well, most of them. I have yet to see an article that would have to be gutted this way because it would be POVed otherwise. Wiki evolves, and an old vote may no longer be useful - for example, this lead is completly inadequate for Wikipedia 1.0. Also note that Wiki's leads are cited more and more often in media, and again, this fails to be comprehensive. I am not insisting on using my older version (this is why I created the above section), I am not reverting your revert, but I do insinst that we work out a compromise and improve thsi article. Nowhere in Wiki official or semi-official policies is it stated that old version, even supported by a vote, cannot be updated. I appraise you for work and moderation on this page, I can see you put many, many hours into this issue, but as a person with 9 FA, and experience in NPOVing controversial articles to FA status (see Talk:Polish-Soviet War archives, for example) I feel I can help you and other contributors to make this a NPOV FA. Please, let's work together and don't be afraid of change. After all, wiki being wiki, change equals improvement, more often then not :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Glad to see the talk. Unfortunately, my article is a 'popular magazine' one with no sources (btw it uses the wrong large death estimates), so I admit we may have to drop most of its info if we cannot verify them. I am glad to see your knowledge of this event is much more extensive then mine - I can leave most of the work to you. As long as you will put the useful date in yourself (population and such) I won't have to do any edits myself :> However, it being Polish makes it no less useful - it is a sourcem and the article uses at least one German-language source as well (Luftkriegslegenden in Dresden von Helmut Schnatz). Additional note: you should make larger leads, as per Lead. I base this not on my preference, but due to tiny leads both of those (great otherwise) articles would fail FAC process. I will reply to other points in Dresden talk. A final note: all info which we cannot source (and you removed from the article) - I'd appreciate if you could add it to Talk for later verification, instead of losing it in the edit history, ok? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Waterloo painting
Hi -- I've scanned the Waterloo painting and added it to the Waterloo article at a location in the text that I chose simply because there weren't any other illustrations there.--Bcrowell 15:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Würzburg radar
Hi Philip,

Sadly we appear to be the only people with any interest in the Wuerzburg/Würzburg debate at the moment, but I was just wondering if I might be able to persuade you to reconsider your Oppose vote? I respect the fact that the source used the Wuerzburg spelling, but when using an English keyboard, 'ü' is often replaced by 'ue' for the sake of convenience over absolute accuracy. In pursuit of correctness, especially when it is of minimal inconvenience to both casual browsers (use of redirects) and Wikipedians to use 'ü', it seems sensible to me that the article should be moved. This would also align the radar's page with that of the town after which it is, after all, named. I'm sorry to have switched all the spellings in the article before the move was agreed - in an attempt at boldness, I tried to move the article without putting up a request, but the previous edit history of the target page prevented me from doing so. I completely forgot to change back that part of my edit afterwards! I hope you feel my other contributions to the page have been constructive - I'm sure we both have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart! Best regards, -- Yummifruitbat 17:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

GA page move
I'm not at all sure why, but it seems we're voting again on what to call Gustavus Adolphus. Since you voted the first time, you may want to participate again. No Account

dear Shearer, by keeping strictly to the archaic -us -phus format, you are allowing the inconsistent (individual)alternative to win. 62.78.104.96 11:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/List of tyrants
I don't like having the List of Tyrants article but you have point. The information is better in one POV article than 2. I couldn't give it a keep vote but felt I needed to chang by vote to neutral. Falphin 18:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I've since changed my vote to keep because Isee no reason we can't have List of purported tyrants, while having List of purported cults Falphin 03:16, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just don't see the point of just moving the disputed names to a separate section. Unless we're allowed to call all of these people dictators or tyrants on their own pages, then this section is unacceptable, and that leaves us a list that only has two, or three, names. RickK 20:35, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous move
Ash Sharqiyah Province -> Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia

there was no consensus about it. additional the Talk page was not moved. I do not know whom to ask maybe you can help. Maybe you can tell me where I would regularly have to go with such an issue. WP;RM ? Or is this to long? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Armed Force
I notice you voted to move the Armed Forces; where has it been moved to? (Relates to Cominterns' objective, ""by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the State."

World War II US Forces
I want to have articles for all of the major US Army commands in World War II, just as you have them for the British. They were:


 * 1) USAFBI    	 United States Army Forces in the British Isles
 * 2) USAFFE   	 United States Army Forces in the Far East
 * 3) USAFIA   	 United States Army Forces in Australia
 * 4) USAFICA   	 United States Army Forces in Central Africa
 * 5) USAFIME    	 United States Army Forces in the Middle East (But it is at U.S. Army Forces in the Middle East, and we might want to move it.
 * 6) USAFISPA   	 United States Army Forces in the South Pacific Area

Any suggestions on development would be appreciated.

Also, I was wondering if you could take a look at Requested_moves. I've listed United States Army Air Force for a move to United States Army Air Forces, the correct term. We didn't have a separate Air Force until 1947, unlike you forward-thinking Brits, and it was decided to use a collective plural since each separate air command was called an "air force."

When I nominated the article for a move about a month ago, two people not-in-the-know decided that since the historically correct term doesn't follow Wikipedia naming conventions, we should persist in misnaming it. Very bad form: It's unscholarly, and more important to me, insulting to American war dead. Imagine calling the Royal Welch Fusiliers the "Royal Welsh Fusiliers." Sure, people would know what you mean, but that's not what they called themselves, it's not how the titled their regimental rolls and marked their monuments etc. The same thing applies here, so please go and vote for "United States Army Air Forces."

Thanks & Regards, --Jpbrenna 20:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) - I apologize for my error regarding WP:RM. Thanks for reminding me. Superm401 | Talk 01:01, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Before I Vote on 'Move Tsushima Islands' Issue
Hi How ya doing! -- fab
 * I would appreciate a rational explaination (after you read my Comments in the subject dispute Talk:Tsushima Islands), of the arguement or arguments you consider vital and germane to the discusion and vote. Frankly, MOST all of you are being silly over nothing of particular importance, since both names can be redirected into the one used. I have left a comment concerning my contribution to the article, which contribution &mdash; seems to have triggered the current edit and revision wars. For that I apologize, but see the Comments on the vote. I am also taking the liberty of putting the vote section AFTER the Comments about same.
 * Still, I have just spent over four hours of valuable spare time, and would welcome your thoughts after you read and understand the distinction I put forth between a governments termonology as a governing body and a geographical reference like an archepelego, which it certainly is.
 * More to the point, I'd like to see your defense regarding your favorite POV of what I had to say viz a viz the mergest attitude of the senior editors and administrators that frequent the VfD discussions. To my recollection, I don't recollect any of you hotheads in this dispute ever spending anytime thereon, possibly excepting Mel Etitis, but rarely even then.
 * In any event, I'm neutral here, and have asked that the article be kept EDIT FREE for the next three days by placing  The Inuse template into it &mdash; I'd copyedited over two and half hours before I suspended that effort the other night because this shameful fued was going on &mdash; proper English grammer does depend, unfortunately, on whether one uses the plural or the singular. I saved that on my hard drive, but I don't need to wade through yet another 70 edits to finish the job. As it is, this matter will probably double the time it takes for such a simple job.
 * If you are local to Japan, some history of the canals or Sea-channel is certainly germane to the ongoing discussion, moreover, any cogent arguement you condsider being particularly telling needs to be clearly repeated in the current on going comments if you want them counted on in the vote.
 * I will make sure this message goes to each contributor to the article the past month, so you are not being singled out. Now is the time to take a deep breath, for rational concise summaries, not all the arguing that is so wearisome in 66 printed pages - half a novelette, I'd guess! It's certainly a lot to ask your fellow editors to wade through on a minor issue.
 * I will also personally be making sure that at least a dozen other Administrators I'm acquainted with take a look at the debate after the time below. I will in fact ask for twenty commitments, so be clear and respectful of our time!!!
 * Thankyou for your time, attention, and good professional behaviour. I'll check the Talk state again no sooner than Monday around Noon (UTC), And ask the uninvolved others to do the same. PLEASE BE CONCISE.  [[User:fabartus | FrankB || TalktoMe]] 23:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BDWWII
That was on the article. I was bringing to attn. SV|t 20:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Marie Antoinette
hi there, read your comment. and i know what the guidelines say. but that still doesn´t solve the problem, does it? Antares911 19:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) i´ve posted a discussion on this current mess, feel free to join in, maybe we can sort this out? 

Requested moves
Thanks for letting me know. I don't think it says so on the page itself. Grace Note 02:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin
Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:36, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

wrong reverts
why do you revert corrections of language mistakes? do you really think there are such words as "Belorussian" or "Byelorussia" or some other in English and these should be used? Did you try to check Google or any "official" encyclopedia about these? --Monkbel 16:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate Article
Looks like someone else also wrote an entry on the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Notifying both authors. Ethiopia-Eritrea War

lots of issues | leave me a message 04:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gdansk -> Gdańsk
What was wrong with my move? The new version of wiki supports diacritics, so it should be Gdańsk, not Gdansk. The title given to this article lacks diacritics because of certain past technical limitations, and the article has not been renamed yet. The title with diacritics is: Gdańsk.

There are no more technical limitations, so? --Akumiszcza 28 June 2005 08:42 (UTC)

Please see Help:Renaming (moving) a page. Pages should be moved with the move button not with a cut and past. PBS 28 June 2005 08:51 (UTC).

Ok, thanks and sorry. But now it takes an administrator to do it. --Akumiszcza 28 June 2005 09:05 (UTC)

Gdansk WP:RM
I have move the page back to Gdansk. I think you should wait for a consensus as specified by WP:RM before moving the page. The Gdańsk spelling is not used in English. Please fix the double redirect on Danzig which you have changed and I can not undo because it is protected. PBS 28 June 2005 15:22 (UTC)
 * Done. I only moved the page because it was in Category:Articles lacking diacritics.  I didn't know it was listed at WP:RM.  dbenbenn | talk 28 June 2005 15:46 (UTC)

Missing movement
What do they call it in Her Majesty's service? --Jpbrenna 29 June 2005 23:33 (UTC)

Mailing list
The mailing list(s) are located here. Alphax τεχ 3 July 2005 07:36 (UTC)

Heads Up on Tsushimas

 * Just a friendly heads up&mdash; through some magic I don't understand the Talk:Tsushima Islands is up for a Final Vote. Get there soon, and pop into Talk:Tsushima Strait as well.
 * Looking over your user page, seems like I should get to know you &mdash; History/Miltary history is the horse I rode into Wiki on! I'll be doing some upgrades on the Russo-Japanese War soon as I get some graphics skills upgraded. I've a lot of reserch in place. later! Fra nkB  7 July 2005 00:43 (UTC)
 * Please take a quick peek at Concern and act accordingly! Thanks Fra nkB  8 July 2005 19:56 (UTC)

Western Front, Battlebox & the Scheldt
Perhaps it is because I'm very tired, but I'm not quite sure I understand what you meant with the campaign box on The Battle of the Scheldt. I look and looked for a campaign or some category to put it under, and found there was no listing of all the battles on the western front. That is why I started that box. If you can help me improve or explain to me how to nest it like you've suggested that would be great. On this note, you'll find, as I'm sure you may already have noticed, that there are multiple parallel categories, and list pages related to the war. Perhaps we can build a road map for integrating them all together in a coherent unified standard way. Continue this on my talk? --Oldsoul 14:38, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

State terrorism United Kingdom
Hi there, could you possibly take a look at State terrorism? I'm haing difficulty persuading User: Lapsed Pacifist not to keep adding unsubstantiated claims to the section on the UK. Thanks illWill 11:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Your reversion of requested moves
Heya, why did you revert my changes to Requested moves? Talrias (t | e | c) 17:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I have replied on my talk page. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Alexandra whatsit
Hi, Philip. You seem to be the resident expert on voting. I notice that the proposer of one of the votes on Talk:Alexandra Fyodorovna of Russia has now voted for several newly-introduced alternatives. I moved the article specifically to encourage debate and achieve consensus, so I can hardly complain about that, but it's getting a bit confusing. Is it permissible for someone who has proposed one alternative to go and vote for lots of others? If so, I might consider doing it myself. Deb 17:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

WP:RM
I thought going through the full procedure (talk-page section etc) was unnecessary if the move was uncontroversial and the target's history had nothing but redirects to old names of the source? – Smyth\talk 20:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Display problems with my signature
I'm assuming the text in my signature didn't display due to a font problem. It's supposed to be an IPA transliteration of Evice, talk, and contributions. Does it work after installing Gentium? Also, the links work fine for me. --User:Evice User talk:Evice Special:Contributions/Evice 01:18, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Royalist
Royalist, the most disambiguated disambigged-upon-disambigged of all disambig-pages. I started romping thru this, and came upon William Pugh (Welsh author). This looks like a 1911 EB without the usual 1911 attributation, but I might be wrong (it's the style, the tone). Since I have so many windows open, and since getting into the 1911 EB requires lots and lots of open-window balancing, to check it, I have to cease romping. First loyalty is to EB 1911; this has to be checked. So I've watchlisted this page. Did you do this special page? You've certainly been there. If you did not do it, I would like to send a message to the author.--FourthAve 00:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * User Pmanderson, or User //again too many windows opened/closed// may have been the author. Wallowing thru one's internet history is difficult when many windows are open and you remember some of them. Appreciate your response on Pugh; this is technically a copyvio, but then NewAdvent is not prepared to sue as poor a corporate entity as Wiki-dom (or more exquisitely, NewAdvent is not prepared to spend the money defending its copyright).

Talk:Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse
As you can see, we are still somewhat stalemated. As an impartial observer, have you any suggestions for resolving the problem? Deb 22:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Would you like to be an administrator?
I've noticed your name on Rick's list, and have seen you do much good work around the wiki, particularly with helping others. As such I think you would make a fine administrator. If you are interested, let me know on my talk page and I will nominate you. Thryduulf 12:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Executions
I think the fact that the list does not include the like of Anne Boleyn, Walter Raleigh, Thomas Cromwell and Thomas More means that Charles II looks out of place amongst the famous criminals and falsly accused, don't you think? Jooler 20:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC) - Also the article is generally concerned with those executed for geniune criminal offences and not for political expediency. There should be another list for beheadings. Jooler 20:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFA
You may have been asked this before, so please excuse me if it is unwelcome, but would you like to be nominated as an admin? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Approval voting
Hi Philip,

Could you have a look at the footnote I added to the "Requested moves" page regarding correct procedure w.r.t. "approval voting".

Since I suppose that you are one of those taking initiative in the vote on Talk:William_of_Orange, I'd like to ask you to take care of that vote, so that it doesn't get biased over "unavailable options".

Thanks!

--Francis Schonken 16:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Duff Cooper
Hello there. I noticed your vote on Talk:Duff Cooper, 1st Viscount Norwich, and I was hoping you could further explain it. The policy on naming conventions specifically allows for the exception I and others are proposing: "EXCEPTIONS: When individuals received hereditary peerages after retiring from the post of Prime Minister (unless they are better known for their later career under an additional/alternative title), or for any other reason are known exclusively by their personal names, do not include the peerage dignity. Examples: Anthony Eden (not 'Anthony Eden, 1st Earl of Avon'), Bertrand Russell (not 'Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell') (but Henry Addington, 1st Viscount Sidmouth not 'Henry Addington')." Given that Duff Cooper is almost exclusively referred to without his peerage, it seems to me and others that this exception applies. Best, Mackensen (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

WoO
Hi Philip,

I'm considering to change the content of the William of Orange page to the following, which I'm sure you won't object to, while it will only attract more people to give their view on the talk page:

This is the simplified version of the William of Orange disambiguation page, mentioning only the two most frequent choices when referring to William of Orange:
 * In the context of Irish and British history, William of Orange refers most often to William III of England (1650-1702), also king of England, also known as William III of Orange(-Nassau), William II of Scotland, "King Billy" and William Henry (In Dutch: "Willem Hendrik")
 * In the context of Dutch history, William the Silent (1533-1584) is most often meant, a.k.a.William I of Orange(-Nassau), also known as William the Silent (In Dutch: "Willem de Zwijger")

See William of Orange (disambiguation) for all other persons named William of Orange.

What d'you think? --Francis Schonken 13:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the 2 options as expresses in the WP:RM vote are better. Another page just leads to confusion. PBS 13:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * WP:RM only mentions one option, I give you the full quote from that page:
 * Talk:William of Orange - William of Orange (disambiguation) → William of Orange. Not only one, but at least two Williams of Orange are widely known under that name, and more or less equally known, wherefore it is POV to redirect that name only to one of them. 217.140.193.123 13:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * As this is already an ongoing discussion on Talk:William of Orange I have moved the poll to that page. PBS 00:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It's you who made two options out of it when moving, so no, I don't understand what actually you mean with: "I think the 2 options as expresses in the WP:RM vote are better. Another page just leads to confusion." Or do you want to say, that we go back to two options in the sense of "move" and "nomove" (without specifying additional actions coupled to the "nomove"), and stop the present vote at talk:William of Orange? I'm a bit confused with what you actually intended with your note on my talk page?
 * Also, I don't see in it a reply to my quesion above? I'd appreciate a reply to that question too!
 * --Francis Schonken 14:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that a "simplified version of the William of Orange disambiguation page" is desirable or necessary. The debate is simply should the page "William of Orange" be a page which points to William III of England with a line at the top of that page:For other men named William of Orange, see William of Orange (disambiguation) to cover those instances where links to the William of Orange page should go to another. Or whether an reference to William of Orange should go directly to the disambiguation. I think the former due to common English language usage, others think diffrently. But this is debated at length on the William of Orange talk page. PBS 15:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No, while you imply with the "directly" that a redirect page is excluded for WoO to WoO disambig. And there's no reason whatsoever to exclude that option from the start, which is a POV you try to push any way think fit (e.g. by an extended revert war over several days on the "William of Orange" page). --Francis Schonken 16:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:William of Orange for my reply. Please do not post any more here. PBS 16:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Article ownership
Dear Philip,

You used the expression: "As the primary author of the original like I reserve the right to say what it is."I try this as gentle as I can, that is: on your talk page and not on WP:VIP or WP:AIV or any other page that attracts too much attention to this negative behaviour.

The basic thing I wanted to say here now, is that one of the most "basic" rules of wikipedia is that there is no such thing as "word ownership". It is part of the NPOV policy, and you can find it in NPOV tutorial

I think there'll be a lot less problems once you get that clue to the people working together in wikipedia.

--Francis Schonken 06:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The expression "Primary Author" is a common shorthand for "If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article" Taken from Manual of Style now while this is not strictly a dispute about a spelling style it is close approximation. As the vote is now >60% in favour of a page move my position will become irrelevant shortly. PBS 07:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Philip,
 * This is not anything near to a discussion about the way words are spelled, you assumed ownership by saying "I reserve the right to say what it is." talking about the content of a whole page (not even started by you: you moved its content elsewere in order to start the coup on the content of that page). And the "If all else fails" was only caused by you. There are other methods, and I can assure you: they will not be failing (although they might result in you getting less invitations to become a sysop in the future). Presently I still try according to this most basic rule of the whole of wikipedia, "we need to start from the assumption we're all reasonable people"
 * Please also have a look at Point of view, most of all the section about Nationalism: it speaks about US/UK biases - of course UK/NL differences follow the same rule, regardless of the number of UK and NL users of wikipedia in the past, now, and in the future. That same guideline talks about "writing from your local perspective on non-local pages": WoO is a "non-local" page, while it implies a lot of "Holland" too. Generally the anti-POV guideline comes down to: when there is a considerable group (i.e. larger than a marginal minority) that could perceive the WoO -> WoE-III redirect some sort of POV, then a more NPOV solution should be preferred, if available. And it is available. And there's no vote needed to effectuate that more NPOV solution. And if a single person tries every trick in the box to avoid getting that more NPOV solution installed, that's called trolling, if not vandalism.
 * --Francis Schonken 08:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * And your calculation skills are deplorable - 60% treshold is not reached for moving at the time of writing this, neither at the time you wrote it was. --Francis Schonken 08:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

(a) No one has yet disputed that both the majority of links inside Wikipedia and pages outside assume that "William of Orange" refers to King Billy. Anyone who votes agains this is voting against policy, not that that is very unusual when people become emotionally involved. (b) the dozen people involved in this discussion hardly constitutes a "considerable group", I am dissapointed that so few are intersted in the vote but that's life. Votes like those over Kolkata/Calcutta or Talk:Zurich attracted more than 60 people each. Even Gasoline/Petrol attracted 15 voters! (c) As to the majority 60% I'll sit aback and see you argue that with others. PBS 08:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you're still all about "majority". It's about the most obvious second choice being a very small tiny minority or being a reasonably often occuring alternative. And now wikipedia practice comes in: UK is generally a minority compared to the US, so the POV/NPOV guidelines say that if the alternative choice occurs fairly often (though being minoritarian), then a NPOV solution should be preferred. Same about WoO: WoO is, in the English language, also used "fairly often" in the meaning of William the Silent, not in a queer minority view kind of way - so should be treated according to these same POV/NPOV guidelines. We can go on about this for ages (like it has been going on for a too long time before adding yet another episode). In the end NPOV is to be applied as good as possible. That's wikipedia quality.
 * And again, all this is regardless of number of people taking part in a vote: If few people take part in a vote, that usually only means there shouldn't have been a vote in the first place, while it was a vote triggering more conflict than it attempted to solve. So, no I'm not dissappointed few people take part in the vote: it only shows once over again pushing POV can't be won by votes. --Francis Schonken 09:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The First English Civil War
Thank you, Philip, for your kind assistance and valuable advice. I was so absorbed in editing this particular article, especially so, when the article is so well-written, except that some sentences were particularly long and hard to comprehend. In any case, breaking up the sentences had been quite a breeze, and should I say, extremely enjoyable, as well. As for the adding of links, I felt that I ought to start from the very beginning, as certain words that I intend to link, could have already appeared in the earlier passages. PM Poon 11:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Earl of Forth
Philip, I think I've managed to clear matters up. Please see Earl of Brentford. Best, Mackensen (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

re: VfD renaming as a pagemove
Good evening. I understand your point and I'm in some ways glad that we've slowed the process down a bit. But I can't help thinking that turning the discussion into a "vote" about the pagemove is exactly the worst way to go about making the decision. The discussion on Talk:VfD so far seems to be working. If we continue, we might actually reach a real consensus rather than a polarized vote. May I ask you to reconsider your proposal to hold a vote on the proposed name change? If we don't see true consensus in a few more days, we can always hold the formal vote then. Thanks for your thoughts. Rossami (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * See the procedure at Requested moves, which is currently against wikipedia policy. *sigh* :-/ -- Kim Bruning 02:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Voting on moving Vfd away from voting
Ok, that was stupid. Don't do it again. Kim Bruning 02:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Dolgoruki
Since you have participated in "Use English" talks, please visit Talk:Ekaterina Dolgorukova to contribute to the current poll. 217.140.193.123 05:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Moving Pages
After a request has been placed on WP:RM and the consensus has been reached on the articles talk page after 5 days, does the requester have to do anything further or just wait for an admin to make the move? You made a comment on the Anti-American sentiment to Anti-Americanism request so I thought I'd ask you. Thanks. Marskell 18:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Treaty of Brest-Litovsk
Let me sleep with it and see if we are able to find a more acceptable solution along the the Brest-Litovsk lines tomorrow, ok ? Or do you have a specific suggestion already ? --Lysy (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Stub needed
Hi, you made a redir from Mad Parliament → Oxford Parliament (1258), but there's nothing at the target. You need to whip up a stub at least, or the redir will be deleted, as it's been listed at WP:RfD (we don't keep redirs with nothing at the target). Noel (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Kehlsteinhaus
Hi, I've noticed the paragraph you have authored on the Allied capture of the Kehlsteinhaus. There seems to be a lot of diverse claims, but I was curious what you thought of the accuracy and authenticity of this report: The Eagle's Nest: The Last Great Prize. I thought of incorporating some of the material and time estimates mentioned there. Cheers Jbetak 16:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

SS Cap Arcona
From A SURVIVOR :

Benjamin Jacobs/Eugene Pool - The 100-Year Secret : Britains's Hidden World War II Massacre - The Lyons Press, October 2004

Wikipedia is not free. Wikipedia is an american ideology.

Question:
I recently noticed that you edited the siege of Maubeuge. On one of the lines you note that General Fournier was fired previous to the battle for defeatism & that the Germans eventually captured the fort. But I have contrary information. I read that after 13 days of sieging, General Fournier surrendered the fort to the Germans, which after the war he was court-martialed & exonerated. I hardly believe that a general would be fired simply for negativity? Could you please explain as I'm ready to tackle the Retreat To The Marne campaign article soon. I'm also amiss if I should simply delete the siege of Maubeuge from the campaign, as it has little part in this stage of the campaign, where as Audregnies does have rather more importance. But then again I could be wrong. Plus I'd love any info you have on the Retreat To The Marne campaign, as I want to go into it with as much resource as I can, enough to make it a FA. A penny for your thoughts..... Spawn Man 06:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply:
I only have one source of my information at the moment: it is http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/maubeuge.htm

I will take your advice also & mostly leave out the siege of maubeuge, but still mention it in the article. This will be to my liking, as, even after reading you page & researching it my self, I still just don't get it at all.... Thanx... Spawn Man 02:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC) P.S= I live in the Wellington region. You're not gonna start stalking me are you? BTW, where do you live? (stalker!) :)

Ordinals for East Francian Carolingians
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) 217.140.193.123 04:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

the new touch rugby article
i see you restored the touch rugby article what can i cut from the touch football article to put on the touch rugby: --Goldensun 08:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * the rules?
 * explanation of the sport?

Rutgers v Princeton, 1869
Thanks. BTW, rather than wasting the research I did to convince Explorer CDT on this matter, I turned it into a new article, History of American football. Grant65 (Talk) 23:20, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

touch rugby/touch football
Hello, I've been asked by Goldensun(I do not play either, but my French is fluent) to help him concerning his problem with the articles above; after having had a good look at the articles and corresponding talk-pages, if I understand correctly, the difference lies in the fact that one is considered a "hobby"-sport, whereas the other is played by the rules of the FIT. Goldensun thinks that he plays the hobby sport, but still he has to abide by the rules by the FIT. Could you help me (and him) sort this out, as he doesn't understand the reverts being made Lectonar 11:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks a million Lectonar 12:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * What about a article calling "touch rugby (FIT)"? i'm creating a new poll on Talk:Touch football (rugby league) sign on Goldensun 13:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

email to the FIT
Hello i'm a french player, in my country our sport is calling touch rugby. I work on wikipedia did you know that encyclopedia. We have a problem to name our sport and of course to name the article: Touch rugby, touch football (rugby league).

The principal argument of the touch football (rugby league) is the sport created in australia and in australia you call that sport touch football

You can see the discution on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Touch_rugby for touch rugby http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Touch_football_%28rugby_league%29 for touch football (rugby league)

Can you help us please(sorry for my english) Quentin Goldensun 18:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

thermopylae
Hello! I've left some notes on Talk:Battle_of_Thermopylae. I can't find, for the moment, sources against Herodotus on this matter, but perhaps we'll find them later. MATIA 09:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

http://www.livius.org/a/battlefields/thermopylae/thermopylae.html mentions Plutarch accusing Herodotus of malice (there are a lot results on Google for Herodotus Plutarch malice). They (livius.org) also have a map, but it's probably copyrighted. I'll check these again after a few days, perhaps you could check them too. MATIA 11:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello! A friend verified that Plutarch disagrees with Herodotus about Thebans too, but I haven't read, yet, Herodotus malice (Ηροδότου κακοήθεια). +MATIA ☎ 07:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Rugby and war
Yeah, I guess you're right. All I meant was that it was like a play-by-play in any sport. It seems you are fairly knowledgable in the subject area. Would you like to work with me on separating out some of the battle into their own articles? I know you said you would rather have articles on other things, before we work on this, but for people with slower connections, the page takes a long time to load. I don't really know which battles would warrant their own articles, and that's where you could come in handy. If you could just make a list of the sections that could be daughter articles, I would actual do the editing work. Thanks for all your help. Cheers. -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark)  13:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

List of massacres
Could you help me with User:Son of Paddy's Ego? He keeps deleting Matthew White's page as an external source, and adding in the Laconia incident as a massacre. He is acting very hostily towards me as well, so maybe you could intervene? --Goodoldpolonius2 21:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Public school (UK)
Some time ago you made an edit to the above article regarding the usages of the term in Scotland. This has now become a matter of dispute. Plase see Talk:Public school (UK) Jooler 21:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Public school
Hi. Heads-up re vote on name change at public school. A couple of us have switched our vote to back the new consensus: a merge with Independent school. I wondered if you would consider reviewing that Talk page and maybe switching support too, so that we can wrap this debate up and move on to improving new article?--Mais oui! 06:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Burma Campaign
My main source for information has been:

"Burma: The longest War 1941-1945", by Louis Allen, J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd, 1984, ISBN 0-460-02474-4

HLGallon 16:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Julian year
Are you actually planning to create Julian year (calendar) in the reasonably near future? -- Curps 22:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone (not me) has redirected Julian year (calendar) to Julian calendar. You may wish to revert. -- Curps 01:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Úbeda
I have now replied at my talk page, sorry for the delay. -- Curps 03:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I've replied again at my talk page. I'll have to step away from the computer soon, within about 10 minutes. -- Curps 09:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I've briefly replied again, asking you not to use this "locking" tactic. I've also blocked Kolokol for 24 hrs for 3RR. -- Curps 16:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sending the message below to the talk pages of each participant in the March 2005 WP:RM vote (each participant except No Puzzle Stranger, that is, who seems to be indefinitely blocked and his talk page is protected):

Hello, sorry for the long message.

In March 2005, there was a WP:RM request and vote (which you took part in) to move Úbeda to Ubeda, with a 6-3 result, see Talk:Ubeda (or perhaps here if renamed).

However, beginning in April 2005 and lasting several months, there was a survey conducted at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), with dozens of participants voting and discussing over an extended period of time. The purpose of the survey was to try to gather feedback for what the policy should be globally. Proponents of diacritics were in the majority, and in general, use of diacritics is widespread in actual practice on Wikipedia today (particularly since the Mediawiki upgrade to Unicode).

However, for Úbeda/Ubeda, PBS is stating that the WP:RM vote takes precedence over the survey results, and a new WP:RM vote would be required to move it to Úbeda. My position is that there should be a global policy rather than case-by-case voting -- that was the whole purpose of the survey. In discussion with him, I wrote:
 * Just as we wouldn't have case-by-case voting on, say, capitalization issues for articles (eg, prepositions in movie and book titles should be lowercase, globally), we shouldn't have case-by-case voting on diacritic issues.

See the discussion at Talk:Ubeda (or perhaps here if renamed).

As a possible alternative to calling a new WP:RM vote which might set a precedent for case-by-case voting across thousands of articles, I am polling all the participants of the original WP:RM vote to ask:
 * Regardless of how you voted in the WP:RM voting, which do you believe should take precedence: the earlier WP:RM vote on the specific article, or the subsequent survey?

Note, since PBS was one of the participants in that vote, he will also be receiving this message and thus will have the opportunity to respond. -- Curps 05:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

PBS - Defender of the Thorn
Thank you for making this edit: Unlikely allies are the most welcome ones. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 09:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)