User talk:PBS/Archive 6

1 2 3 4 5

Ottoman Empire
Dear sir; I was hoping you would consider this proposal. Under the "World War I", "Middle Eastern theatre of World War I" is listed. If you look where the battles had been performed, also between the armstice to "threaty of serves" most the allies were in the anatolian lands. That name does not really cover the material presented under it. If you consider this proposal, either we should rename that to "Ottoman Front" or break it into peaces. I'm specifically objecting the "Caucasus Campaign" and "Dardanelles Campaign" listed under the Middle Eastern, even if you like to interperet that word liberally. --user:Tommiks

"enemy combatants", "illegal combatants", "unlawful combatants" and "unprivileged belligerents"
I noticed that "enemy combatants" has been redirected to "unlawful combatants".

The Bush administration has had a gradual evolution of the terms they have used to refer to the Guantanamo detainees and their other extrajudicial detainees in the "Global War on Terror". Some here on the wikipedia seem to think that "enemy combatants", "illegal combatants", "unlawful combatants" and "unprivileged belligerents" can all be used interchangeably.

I don't agree. I suspect that the evolution of terms reflects a strategy among the spin doctors, behind the scenes. The wikipedia entry for "enemy combatants" has about twenty articles that link to it.

I've looked for, and have not found, an authoritative external source that decodes the evolution of terms US spokesmen have used. I think you tried to make the point that the set of "enemy combatants" includes both lawful combatants, who qualify for the Geneva Convention protection of POW status, and war criminals, or mercenaries, who do not qualify for POW status.

I do not think that "enemy combatant" should be redirected to "unlawful combatant". I think the wikipedia should have a short dispassionate article that distinguishes between the other terms.

I suspect that some of those twenty links to enemy combatant really should have linked to one of the other terms.

What do you think? -- Geo Swan 20:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It is like you read my mind. --  Geo Swan 23:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

template
"Template:RAF WWII Strategic Bombing" - like it, applied it to some of the articles GraemeLeggett 13:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there should be one for the "RAF WWII Air defence of the UK" which could then link together the principle action (BoB), the aircraft and the technology Chain Home, AI radar etc. I'd like to use the Strategic bombing one as a basis. Any opinion on the matter?GraemeLeggett


 * You can see the template I've gotten at the bottom of Royal Observer Corps. Again, comments welcome.GraemeLeggett 13:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ive gone for "Template:WW2AirDefenceUK" since there are non-RAF elements to it. Feel free to enhance as necessary. GraemeLeggett 08:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the cleanup of "Bombardment of Pforzheim". Well done. user:Hild

To add to the thanks of you, as the fellow who began the XII or 12th Armee discussion a while back (and soon realized I was out of my league, so dropped out of that), I just want to thank you for your labors with wikipedia.

Peace and have a good day, --Gbinal 18:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion
Please see Third opinion on Talk:Crime against humanity. Seems best to get a disinterested third party to have a look at this one as you and I are unlikely to come to an agreement on this issue without help. --PBS 22:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying to find a solution. As there were already third people at the pages who did reasonable edits I do not quite see why you rush to an extra wiki page without ever having tried to ask people at the articles' pages or having made use of my talk page, but everyone as he likes. Get-back-world-respect 22:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Your third opinion (actually technically it's a fourth opinion) has been given. Please see talk page. &rArr;    SWAT Jester   [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  Ready    Aim    Fire!  23:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

football
The Victorian Rules folk are trying to claim that Aussie Rules is an Australian variety of the game when it is very distinctly a Victorian variation of football and was codified in Victoria many years before the beginning of Australia. If you share the same opinion I would love for you to come to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Football and give your opinion.

All the best

04:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Licinius
 * Hi Philip. Amusing to see Licinius desperately trying to rally support. He doesn't seem to have grasped that "football" is not "a game"; it is a name that is applied to many games. Or, similarly, that for something to be called "Australian", it does not have to be pursued by every single person in Australia.  Grant65 | Talk 04:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Please check your WP:NA entry
Greetings, editor! Your name appears on List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct: Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 03:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
 * 2) If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
 * 3) Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Arb Com.
I'd like you to voice your side of the story of the GBWR dispute at the pending Arbcom request. WP:RFAR. Thank you. &rArr;   SWAT Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  04:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Chadian-Sudanese conflict
A long time ago you voted against moving the page to Chadian-Sudanese War. You might want to reconsider your vote, based on new information documented in the latest Human Rights Watch report on the situation. Yesterday French troops were deployed in Borota, Chad to fight Sudanese militias and the Janjaweed, Sudanese military, and RDL rebels apparently worked together to "empty villages" in eastern Chad. At least over 1,000 people have died, and the conflict is definitely not over despite the signing of the Tripoli Accord. I am urging other users to do the same. KI 00:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Allied War Crimes and Unrestricted Submarine Warfare
Hi Philip

Thanks a lot for weighing in, and for the correction on Dönitz. I fully agree with your removal of the NPOV. Let's hope that the issue has been put to rest now. Andreas 09:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible wars between liberal democracies
Hi. I see that you have an interest in history and military history. I am writing a list of possible wars between liberal democracies and what has been said about them in the DPT literature: User:Ultramarine/sandbox3. I would appreciate any suggestions. Ultramarine 12:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Halbe
Hi Philip

Thanks for your contributions to the article. I normally use German nomenclature to help the reader distinguish between the Germans and their opponents (we had a short discussion about this on the Mil Hist Project page (now archived), where there were no strong feelings one way or the other. In any case, since you changed it, I guess you do, and I accept that. :-)

One thing though I will change back - German armies had Arabic numerals. Roman numerals were only used for Armeekorps (e.g. XXXXVIIII.AK) and for battalions that were part of a regiment (e.g. II./IR424). Everybody else had Arabic numbers or letters, or names.

Keep up the good work. Andreas 08:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's continue the discussion on my talk page? Andreas 11:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Philip - it might be better to continue on the MilHist talk page, since it goes beyond the Wiki article on Halbe? Andreas 12:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Halbe it is. Andreas 13:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT on Naming conventions (Swedish)
Re. Naming conventions (Swedish):


 * Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

Further, according to WP:POINT:
 * If you wish to change an existing procedure or guideline...
 * do set up a discussion page and try to establish consensus
 * don't push the existing rule to its limits in an attempt to prove it wrong, or nominate the existing rule for deletion

and:
 * Egregious disruption of any kind is blockable by any administrator — for up to one month in the case of repeat offenses that are highly disruptive.

If you have any questions, ask me. --Francis Schonken 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

To date Francis as you must be aware, I have edited the Naming conventions (Swedish) page once. To revert you changing the page from a proposed guideline to a guideline. So why are you writing to me about three-revert rule and what is this WP:POINT "If you wish to change an existing procedure or guideline..." supposed to mean? As I have written on the talk page of the article I am not convinced that you have a wikipedia:consensus to make the change from proposal to guideline. I would point out to you that I am trying to work in the spirit of the Policies and guidelines ---PBS 11:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As you seem accustomed, you revert prior to talk page engagement. The 3RR template says: "Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive." (my bolding)
 * WP:POINT is clear that this is no way of behaving regarding guidelines.
 * Further, I accuse you of laziness: re. Naming conventions (Swedish) all your conditions are met, apart from the imaginary "number of people editing a proposal" and "needs a poll" (which is just you operating outside consensus). You just didn't make any effort to check on how many pages the proposals were advertised, nor read the Village pump discussion to which I posted links on several places, nor checked that in the whole of the process of working on this proposal there were at least 20 or 30 people engaged directly or indirectly, nor checked that there was a clear consensus established on its talk page, etc.
 * That's why I posted this formal warning. Since you continued your behaviour now also on naming conventions (Czech), I add a second formal warning:
 * You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing.
 * Please remember that the things I say above are much more within wikipedia's established consensus, than your solitary crusade against *any* (partial) solution of the diacritics debate, and I'm prepared to take that up in an RfC or RfAr or whatever is needed. So I'm still asking you politely to undo your reverts of Naming conventions (Swedish) and naming conventions (Czech), and discuss such revert proposals on the respective talk pages *first* (that is prior to de-guidelining), and await the results of such discussions before action on the guideline pages. --Francis Schonken 11:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please remember that the things I say above are much more within wikipedia's established consensus, than your solitary crusade against *any* (partial) solution of the diacritics debate, and I'm prepared to take that up in an RfC or RfAr or whatever is needed. So I'm still asking you politely to undo your reverts of Naming conventions (Swedish) and naming conventions (Czech), and discuss such revert proposals on the respective talk pages *first* (that is prior to de-guidelining), and await the results of such discussions before action on the guideline pages. --Francis Schonken 11:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Francis: see the Three-revert rule it says "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period." I have not reverted single page 3 times in 24 hours. I would have thought you would applaud my attempts to build a consensus on the policies, if there is a consensus like you believe then it will become self-evident quite quickly. --PBS 12:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive." is content of the 3RR template. so I'm perfectly entitled to consider you impolite and unproductive.
 * Now you added a new revert: Naming conventions (use English). Justifying your revert with "I do not agree" against over 30kb of talk by several people on the talk page of that guideline, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), can be labelled WP:POINT beyond a shred of doubt.
 * Asking you politely to undo that revert of Naming conventions (use English) too.
 * Please give people the time to react to your posts at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English). Consider using the in-between time to read prior discussion, like Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format. The speed you develop in reading other wikipedians' contributions would mean you're busy reading for at least 24h. --Francis Schonken 14:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Now you're at it re. Naming conventions (hockey). Please, again, have a look at WP:POINT, you give the impression never having read what's in there.

(again:)
 * Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

You're impolite, and unproductive, and you're making a stock trade out of it. --Francis Schonken 00:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Francis: to repeat myself: see the Three-revert rule it says "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period." I have not reverted single page 3 times in 24 hours. I would have thought you would applaud my attempts to build a consensus on the policies, if there is a consensus like you believe then it will become self-evident quite quickly. --PBS 00:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay page move
Thank you for helping with that. You set up a poll that was already ongoing above as I had indicated by saying consensus was to move the article, could you please change that? ROGNNTUDJUU! 14:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:RM for The FU's
Sorry about that. I've taken the necessary steps at Talk:The FU's. Dylan 17:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

My sincere apologies again
For my outburst on the Battle of Halbe talk. Had a bad day at Ikea yesterday, and should probably not have logged into Wiki. Not that that makes it okay. All the best Andreas 09:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. I agree that it is a good co-operation, and I hope we can improve this, and other articles we may end up co-operating on. Andreas 10:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Prince Rupert of the Rhine
hi PBS, how are you? you helped out once on editing the article above. there is a discussion on renaming it, maybe you care to drop by and share some input? with kind regards... Gryffindor 17:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Peru v Kriegsmarine
Hunting for info. In the article on Peru, the history section states that the Peruvians destroyed a German submarine and a German "battleship": ''In 1943 the Peruvian navy destroyed a German submarine that had arrived to the port of Callao to get supplies. Peru also sunk another German battleship in 1944.'' I've found NO evidence for anything like this, even allowing that "battleship" might mean "warship". Have you any evidence? Further problem is that the Peru page is protected and I cannot amend it. Folks at 137 10:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Bangladesh Liberation War
Hello, this has reference to your tag as regarding giving reference to the contents of a section of the captioned page. I have provided 2 links, and removed the tag placed by you. In case, we search, we shall find a number of references in the google. the matter was well documented and reported by media, including the western media. --Bhadani 16:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC) western countries.

Bromyard Downs
Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply, if you can.

Thanks! Aaronw 14:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Independent school (United Kingdom)
Sorry it may not have been WP:MS and I am sorry if I have caused upset, but somewhere in one of the policies there is the idea that abbreviations should be avoided in titles - such as UK for United Kingdom. It would be fair to assume that UK meant United Kingdom but that isn't the only meaning. This change makes the title more self-explanatory, and brings into line with other United Kingdom related pages that have moved from UK to United Kingdom. The same applies for EU for European Union and US or USA for United States. Davidkinnen 17:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Geneva Convention (1929)
Hi there, I saw that you created the article Geneva Convention (1929). I would like to point out that the lemma as well as the introduction is partly incorrect because there were actually two Geneva Conventions in 1929. In addition to the convention regarding the treatment of POW's which was first adopted in 1929, the first Geneva Convention (adopted in 1864, revised for the first time in 1906) underwent another revision in 1929. So it would be good to either move the article to a new lemma reflecting that the article is about the POW convention, or to extend the article with respective details about the other convention. Best Regards, --Uwe 17:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, signed in Geneva on 27 July 1929. And this is 1929 revision of the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field, also signed in Geneva on 27 July 1929. The Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field was adopted in 1864 and later revised in 1906 and 1929. The Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War was adopted in 1929. From a chronological perspective, the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field was the first Geneva Convention and the Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War was the second Geneva Convention. In the context of the 1949 revisions of both conventions, which is the current revision of all Geneva Conventions, the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field became the Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field and the Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War became the Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. You can also check this chart for more information. --Uwe 18:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Heading links
Hi there, I noticed your revision on List of war crimes re section headings. I've seen this on other articles too - do you know of anywhere in the wp policies that gives guidance on use fo links within section headings? Thanks AndrewRT 16:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Brilliant thanks! AndrewRT 10:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Invitation
The Mediation Cabal You are a disputant in a case listed under Mediation Cabal/Cases. We invite you to be a mediator in a different case. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information. SteveBot (talk) 07:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

--Fasten 13:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Philip, you know very well that the Mediation Cabal is totally voluntary and informal. To say that my requesting mediation -- which is, after all, COOPERATIVE -- is somehow disruptive is truly beyond belief. You clearly have an axe to grind here, and you're trying to shut down debate, and I resent that. --Hyphen5 00:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of Talk:Mercenary
I would like to address your points individually and explain why I feel that these pages should be archived.

A Page is not yet big enough for archiving.
 * If I make an analogy to piles of paper sitting on a desk: It seems that you are saying that these two-year-old, ratty, unused papers shouldn’t be archived because they are not yet in a large enough pile. I feel that it is an absurd argument to boot and that it is instruction creep to say that they cannot be archived because they “aren’t 32k yet.”

B if it is archived Best to do it with a move not a copy
 * Perhaps this is true, but moving pages means loosing current discussions. The way I archived the information was logical and fit the flow of the discussions (or so I felt). The resulting talk page was clean and each archive was navigable. Compared to the way it is now, that was an immense improvement for the end user.

Feel free to discuss this here, on my discussion, or on Talk:Mercenary.

Good day, Sir. Dan, the CowMan 01:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your frank response. I am still fairly new here and still learning. No arguments here, case closed. *Shakes hands* Dan, the CowMan 01:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas deBrabant/Nick Knight
Which editors should I speak to, and how do I contact them? I'm new to this process, so please pardon my ignorance as to procedure. The only other Nick Knight article I'm aware of is one that deals with a real life British athlete. Celtic Knight.

Oil (disambiguation) → Oil
Hello. In the interest of building a consensus, I would appreciate any input you (as a recent contributor to these pages) would have regarding the request to move Oil (disambiguation) back to Oil. Thank you, --Kralizec! (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding expanded options and instructions to my move request on Oil (disambiguation) → Oil. This being only my second WP:RM, I am very appreciative of help towards gaining a concensus on the issue. Unfortunately not everyone has caught your modified instructions about only casting support votes, and nearly half the votes are opposing (ironic since all three options are mutually exclusive). --Kralizec! (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

OmegaT page move
Regarding Talk:Wikipedia:Leuce/OmegaT. Thanks for your help. Erm, should I vote for my own proposal? I hope I've done the steps correctly. leuce 13:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki "Periodic Report of the United States of America to the United Nations Committee Against Torture" to wikisource?
I recommended that Periodic Report of the United States of America to the United Nations Committee Against Torture be moved to wikisource. Like you I made some good faith edits to that article without realizing that it was not a summary of the document, but a cut and paste of the original U.S. press release.

Since you did some work on the article, and stated a concern on the talk page, so I thought you might want to voice an opinion on the transwiki. Have you ever been involved in a transwiki?

Cordially, Geo Swan 21:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hurly-Burly and the B-bbbbbbarrell Kick
and Wow! Best regards,Fra nkB 17:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Long time, no say hi... seems like yesterday! 
 * I kicked over the barrell boldly here in defence of guidelines, and will spam notify a few others in that debate as well.
 * I wonder if you will consider dropping me an email detailing some tips on what methods you use to keep up and track all this hurly-burly, as I am daunted by discovering just how many policy proposals are on the listing category, and frankly, 'Frank' doesn't quite know how anyone gets enough WikiTime to both spend time tracking and commenting on such as well as creating things added to wikipedia, much less keeps up with all that! Shudder!

A drop in the sea
is a sneaky vandal and wont stop changeing items if you ask him. He has changed many items in many articles without stateing sources. He changes any article as he sees fit and removes key paragraphs and thereby altering the whole article. Often he gets reverted by others but he still keeps on chageing so if you want his to stop then go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation and sign the post, you need to scroll down some. (Deng 15:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC))

Revision of Historical revisionism
You reverted some of my changes to this article, intended to be both more factually accurate and to avoid a needlessly POV presentation. In the process you also reverted changes that were perhaps not so important but for which the reversion seems nevertheless needless.

As to the main issue: the people who organized the conference in Turkey carefully avoided the use of loaded terms, and are quite unhappy when it is labelled as dealing with "genocide", whether explicitly or implicitly as through the link to Armenian Genocide. I suspect that also the lawyer of the remaining defendant would be less than pleased if he knew about it.

The fact that the journalists were also charged with violating Article 288 has some (minor) importance, because by dint of Article 301 alone the maximum penalty would be two years.

What does it mean that "the trial is seen as"? There are many who do not see the trial as such. Should I slap a fact on that? Suppose that I manage to get published that, in my humble opinion, "PBS is a Twinkie lover," can we then state in Wikipedia articles (assuming you are a notable person) that "PBS is seen as a Twinkie lover"?

As to a citation for the Turkish penal code reform, is that really necessary? The Turkish steps to move forward to the start of negotiations have been widely publicized at the time, and are stated in detail in the report of the EU commission recommending on the issue. But I really have no appetite to go and look for this in the morass of papers on the eu web site. Do you honestly think someone might challenge this?

For people not saying "genocide", how do you document that? Could you give a citation for Condoleezza Rice not saying that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a "dahaati"? The issue is important in this context because the revisionism, if any, of Turkey is in contesting the use of the label "genocide" for the large-scale deaths of Ottoman Armenians. Turkey does not deny that they died (although the numbers are also contested), but denies the allegation that this was part of a government-supported plan. So if these trials are brought up in this context, the suggestion is that the accused supported the allegation of genocide, which in fact they did not.

Thank you for the corrections to the references in the footnotes. Lambiam Talk 14:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

dialect
Yes. Why? &mdash;Tamfang 15:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not my fault if you mispronounce your vowels, but with common consonants we expect more consistency. Cirencester (an old spelling no longer reflecting the current pronunciation) is not analogous to facade (a new spelling no longer reflecting the unchanged pronunciation). &mdash;Tamfang 21:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Cavalier
Philip, thank you for the invitation to the discussion page relating to Cavaliers. Redirects have been placed back to the Cavaliers (royalist), and I'll endeavor to fix links to point to the appropriate page. Regards. Netkinetic 06:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Article 301 (Turkish penal code)
You put the tag on Article 301 (Turkish penal code). I have turned the older references into -style footnotes and added some more. Could you review if the article is now sufficiently referenced? Lambiam Talk 14:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Bromsgrove School
First, the GC is not equivalent to the VC, as anyone who knows anything about British decorations knows - no award is equivalent to another, since there is always an order of precedence in the wearing of the medals. If a person was awarded the VC and the GC then the VC would always be worn first and the postnominal letters would always come first. It is a fallacy that they are equal, although one liberally spread by the media. Second, the individual I deleted was described as a GP, not a GC. Of course GCs should be listed as notable, and I certainly did not delete the individual with the GC (I merely deleted the claim that the VC and the GC were equal). However, the description "GP" does not make someone notable without further description - it describes thousands of doctors in the UK. -- Necrothesp 15:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Parliamentarians --> Parliament of England
For those in the Civil War period I think that "Parliamentarians --> Roundhead" is a better link than "Parliamentarians --> Parliament of England". --PBS 23:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Philip and thanks for the suggestion. When I started disambiguating the page two weeks ago, I did disambiguate the first few links for English Civil War Parliamentarians to Roundhead exactly as you suggest, but then I went back and changed them to point to Parliament of England. The article Roundhead focuses only on the use of that nickname: it says little or nothing about the people and the cause. Out of all the articles available Parliament of England seemed to me to be the one that would least surprise the reader. I appreciate that if Roundhead were expanded or a specific article created, the links would need disambiguating again. I even considered redlinking them all to Parliamentarian (English Civil War) to indicate the need for the article, but I didn't want to do that without discussion.  Finally, if any of the above occurs, I will happily go back and amend the links again myself! ~ Veledan • Talk 17:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

River Teme
Thank you for pulling me up and correcting me over the matter of the river Teme. I fully agree with the policies that you drew my attention to. My problem was with some one who had violated WP:NOR in the article that he had written, which was largely utter rubbish. As an inexperienced users (and having read warnings about the consequences of vandalism), I was reluctant to delete virtually the whole text of the section. I hope that more recent editting and writing of new articles has been uncontroversial. I have been trying to steer away from unpublished results, though possibly the occasional sentence from them may creep in; this may happen if I am dealing with particularly detailed issues. However my objective is to bring the articles that I have been editting up to the standard of what is the generally accepted view. The correct place for unpublished results is in printed journals, in in Wikipedia. Peterkingiron 23:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire (Turkey) and Article 301
Perhaps you missed my reaction in the section Talk:Genocides in history? --Lambiam Talk 22:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the disputed-section tag and supplied a new reference I found for the fact tag you put in. It is lucid and an interesting read, if you're not tired yet of hearing about the antics of Turkish nationalists. Thanks for all your efforts. Lambiam Talk 21:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:Move
Hi Philip,
 * ''...should be altered to remove the word "voting"

Neither for nor against, but am wondering how many other folk coming by this might also wonder why "voting" is problematic...? Regards, David Kernow 03:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * ''See the long discussions in the archive of Wikipedia talk:Consensus --PBS 07:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer; I see there's a whole host of issues contained therein. Perhaps some folk feel that "voting" is tainted thanks to its use by politics in the wider world. For me, though, here in the context of Wikipedia, saying that I support one idea (without necessarily rejecting all others) and saying that I vote for that idea (again, without that making me unable to vote for any others) amounts to the same action. Regards, David Kernow 12:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII
What sort of social rank would one have to bear in their family, in order to be a descendent of either?

How far up the totem pole, would you say?

This is intended to have broad answers and based on gradients of time and population, not going into specifics about exact descendents. About how common is their descent in the English or British genepool today?

I've noticed that American Presidents don't descend from either king, but the most common recent royal ancestor shared by many of us is Edward III. How common is it for anybody in the English or British genepool, to have a Protestant royal ancestor?

There is a general cutoff, isn't there?

Is it because of fratricide in the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors' "new men", or the Union of the Crowns, or the parliamentary union under Queen Anne (I can't think of any non-royal family descent from the Hanoverians within the UK)?

I'm thinking that there is a big difference between Plantagenet and Tudor descents, that the commons in all likelihood have the former and the latter is held by the lords. (just generally speaking) Then again, Tudor descent in the Welsh must be higher in general. I am further curious about pre-Royal Tudor blood in Anglo-British people today, since the status and/or concept of Welsh royalty/nobility is rather hazy in my mind. I found the Blevins aka Ap Bleddyn family of Powys in my ancestry, but have no real idea on what to make of it--or any other Welsh "native aristocracy". I might be able to find Stewart descent somewhere, from way back when. What percentage of Hanoverian background do you think that German colonists had in America?

On the British side, I have to go as far back as Welf himself...but any recent genetic relationship with the Hanoverians or the counts of Nassau are completely obscure. How does one research those other colonial people, such as the Hessians?

UK genealogy is relatively easy when focusing on English (and French) ancestries. What would a "national person" of Jerusalem (or Antioch, for example) in Crusader times be known as?

We say "American" for those Founders, but was there such a nationality-term for the Crusaders in their own domains?

I guess the term is supposed to be Levantine/Outremer, or "Crusader" as our national heritage says "Colonist"...

IP Address 11:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Request
Greetings. Would you be able to check out the Pontian Greek Genocide page and try to help clean it up? First off, it's highly POV, plus it's a bit messy. Thanks. &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

RFA nomination
 Haukurth would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Haukurth to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

I think you're supposed to formally "indicate acceptance" before the RFA goes live. We don't want to be caught for sloppiness as soon as the horse leaves the stables :) Haukur 21:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Here, I believe. Where it says "Please indicate" etc. Haukur 16:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

My own RfA & Spion Kop
Hi Philip, sorry to be a bother. During my current RfA, concerns are being raised about the Battle of Spion Kop debacle of over a year ago, specifically involving my comments to you. Could you be so kind as to comment there? As far as I'm concerned, the debate was heated at times, but entirely civil. Thanks, dewet|✉ 05:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Edits on the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Hello alittle thing about the article

You removed 4 key words would have been able and replaced them with had plans

I dont see how one thing excludes the other becase you could say this had plans and would have been able to...

Because just haveing plans does not mean that they were able to.

It is hard for me to explain what I mean but here goes

You have removed a fact that is almost undoubtably true. And the removal of any "truth" is always bad. But I am not going to revert it or anything like that I just wanted to point out that I dont agree with what you did but that I am not going to do anything what so ever about it, well except posting this message. (Deng 00:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC))


 * would have been able to ..." implies that "would have been able to successfully ..." and that is speculation But so is that if youpick up a rock and the drop it that it will fall.


 * Looking at the real world in 1945. The Soviet Union had the best trained army at that time it had a huge industry and had have real traning in the real world with real results or 4 years against a real enemy. And the Soviet Union had many times more Eavy Metal then the Japanese. For example the Japanese didnt have any tank that could match the t-34 let alone the t.34/85 and IS-2 and NO country on earth had any tank equall to the t-44 and IS-3. The Soviets had many more and bigger guns a logistical system that worked and all other things needed for rapid deployment. The only thing that the Japense had that was equallt to the Soviets was the airforce but this had been destroyed by the americans and all the skilled pilots were dead. and then looking more at real events The soviets did take over the whole of China and half korea in a very short of time and more importantly they had allready during that exact same time caputred 2 islands. So saying that it is speculation if the Soviets would or would not be able to capture Hokkaido is the same as saying it is speculation that a rock will fall to the ground if you drop it from your hand. Looking at the real world and what had actually happened and how things were for real in the real world does make it a very safe bet that they would also have been able to take Hokkaido (Deng 16:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC))


 * Damn you make so many misstakes ;). Ok first Germany 1944 was not as Japan 1945. Why was the Battle of Berlin so messy -- simple Stalin wanted to get to the German nuclear plans which were in southern Berlin and he wanted it as soon as possible. To understand what the soviets and Japense were like and to see what the Soviets did to the Japense on main land china and on the 2 islands that they captured before japan surrendered and to understand how big it was you must read the 2 reports made by david glantz for the us army and which have been uploaded. They are lon and longer and longest and will take atleast several weeks to read and understand but IF you choose to do so then you might understand what I understand which is that the Soviets would have taken Hokkaido. As I said before I wont change the text but if you do someday read these 2 reports and perhaps others you might understand how the real world looked in 1945 and draw your on conculsions. http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz3/glantz3.asp AND http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz4/glantz4.asp(Deng 20:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

River Teme
You will remember that there was trouble with the history section of the article, River Teme containing material what was unreferenced and probably derived from the author's invention. He has been back at it again. I think this is probably the original author (Andy Mabbet - I think), who was subsequently blocked. He has been at it again! I do not like to alter this myself pending the publication (probably in July) of my own article, when I will add a neutral statement citing my view and the article to which mine is a reply. I suspect that there is a small group of enthusiasts in the Worcester area, who have been persuaded of the truth of their unsourced views, and are determined to use Wikipedia to propagate them.

Is it possible to get the article protected against alteration by those who have not legged in? Sorry to have to trouble you about this, but I gain the impression that you are much more experienced in the ways of Wikipedia than i am. Peterkingiron 23:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Baronets
Sorry I didn't reply earlier, but WikiProject Peerage probably has the style guides you're looking for. Choess 18:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

spelling of usual names
You probably wish to visit the latest discussion at Talk:Michael of Chernigov- the point is what is English and what is not. Marrtel 15:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Memel and Das Lied der Deutschen
Thank your for your interest in Memel and Das Lied der Deutschen, but I'm convinced you made a mistake by your moves which can be regarded as POV against German history. Please reconsider carefully! --Matthead 17:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Treaty of Waitangi & Republicanism
Just read your comment re Waitangi and New Zealand's prospects of becoming a republic with it. This is simply a misnomer; the Treaty will not be abrogated by the change, as all other International agreements will not be. --Lholden 00:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Commonwealth English 'OR' lack-of-debate
I stumbled onto the 'In your Face' pov (OR) tag on the Commonwealth English / Talk:Commonwealth English article yesterday. Nothing much seems to have happened lately, and since it wasn't documented appropriately (IMO), I removed it with an appropriate talk annotation, including documenting it's original placement. IMHO, one persons POV shouldn't be allowed to junk up an article that way, w/o some procedurally smooth way of correcting the issue, even when they are stubborn about same, but that's wikiP, I guess. This is just a heads-up, as you're obviously far more active in the article than I! Best regards // Fra nkB  14:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

William Wallace?
I'm not sure I agree with your edit to Invasion. Do you really think he's a more relevant example than Bobby Sands? How many people have been killed in the name of William Wallace in, say, the last century? That's like saying the Alamo is a more potent symbol than the World Trade Center. Wallace is remembered, sure. But it's been a long time since he inspired insurrection on the same level as the Long Kesh 10.

Perhaps both examples could be used (one historical and one modern)? I'm not going to revert your change out of hand, of course, but I'd like to hear your reasoning. Kafziel 17:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations
You're now an admin, so have fun using your shiny new tools to help the place out. Spend some time reading the policies and re-read them before acting. Conservative use of the admin tools is also recommended. Get involved at the administrator's noticeboard to help out with issues that arise, familiarize yourself with the work that admins do, and to sound out potentially controversial issues. Again, congratulations - Taxman Talk 22:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, and good luck! Kafziel 22:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yay! :D Haukur 23:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

legality of DU weapons
Philip: I modified the section on DU legality. Section should be kept to a minimum and have readability. Try to limit POV writings in these sections. There is an appropriate link to the organizations that oppose DU use and there is susinct explanation of the debate without much bias. ER MD 22:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I just saw your remark in discussion. For the record I am not User:ER MD and I only edit with a single account. I do not see how anything has changed between my edit and yours - but I am too tired to fight with the likes of you anymore. Do not bother to reply, it's unlikely that I will see it. --DV8 2XL 00:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Polish medieval monarchs naming
Hi. I have proposed to move the following monarchs from their current, generally Polish-spelled names (with diacriticals) to the systematical English name, citing my general ground that English should be used, not Polish. Would you share your opinion at Talk:Bolesław I the Brave, Talk:Bolesław II the Bold, Talk:Mieszko II Lambert, Talk:Władysław III Spindleshanks, Talk:Jan I Olbracht and Talk:Kazimierz III the Great. Marrtel 20:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:FOOT and punctuation
Could you please tell me which edit you are opposing to (I mean the article). And could you please point me to on WP:FOOT where there is "no consensus" for this? I am quite of the opposite opinion. This *has* been discussed there at length. So please tell me on which articles you object doing this and please raise your voice on WP:FOOT so your concerns can be dealt with there. In the mean time I will continue. What I do is also in compliance with the Chicago Manual of style (as explained on my talk and on the the talk of WP:FOOT). --Ligulem 18:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You didn't answer my qestions above: On which articles do you object having the footnotes as per WP:FOOT? I can then leave those as they are. Requesting that I stop changing articles to comply with WP:FOOT is inacceptable. And yes, I have read what you wrote on the talk there. Otherwise we will have to do an RFC. --Ligulem 18:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you reverted my edit here, so I will leave that article as it is. But you might notice that said article is inconsistent after your reversion. There are two footnotes after the punctuation and the rest before, so you might want to bring that to a consistent state there. --Ligulem 19:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Your reversion on Arthur Travers Harris also leaves the article in an inconsistent state. Some footnotes are after the periods and some are before. Don't you think that at least inside the very same article a consistent style should be used? (Which my edit accomplished there). After your revert that article is again inconsistent. --Ligulem 19:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

English Civil War
Hello. I noticed the 'very long' template you placed on the English Civil War Talk Page. As I am sure you remember from our past exchanges I suggested that the sections on the campaigns of Montrose be removed and given seperate treatment. They fit very ill at present, and seperation would make the article a little more manageable. I am conscious of your past reluctance to embrace such a proposal, and therefore have no wish to undertake a task that might cause some editorial friction. Rcpaterson 22:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Long talk page
Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 00:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

References for Sachsenhausen
I've added a References section to the article on the Sachsenhausen concentration camp, and included only the encyclopaedia upon which I based my editing.

I note you've edited the section, Soviet special camp. Do you have any print references to add? Please do so, or otherwise leave a comment on the article's Talk ("Discussion") page citing which External links or other sources you used for this material. -- Thanks, Deborahjay 05:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Update: Thanks for the speedy reply -- see full text of mine at my Talk page. -- Deborahjay 07:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

William of Orange
Sorry, I didn't think anybody was still fighting that one; but I think a requirement that articles with epithets be unambiguous is still good policy. Septentrionalis 18:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Further reading vs. External links
Thanks so much for your treatment of listing the supportive and collateral material for the Sachsenhausen concentration camp article. I wasn't familiar with how to do this, and have the following points to clarify, if you would please address them:
 * External link as a Reference -- I hadn't thought to do this, but it makes sense if that's the source from which the article's content derives. Do I understand correctly, then, that a reference need not be a print source?
 * If external links are listed under Further Reading (which I'd thought was only for printed matter, e.g. books and journal articles), what's the use I've seen elsewhere of a heading for External links?

I'll ask at New Contributors' Help about where I can find explanations of the use of these headings, but would like to have your thoughts on the matter in the case at hand, i.e. this article. -- Thanks, Deborahjay 22:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Further: Your coaching (on my User Talk page) is excellent -- it supplements the Guide to Layout to which I was refered from my NCH query. Even a read-through has raised my awareness, and I'm sure I'll be using these formats as I expand my editing activities. ''Thanks much! -- Deborahjay 01:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)''

Edit summary
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing. Skinnyweed 14:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Wilhelmstrasse and Klaipeda
As you promote the use of Wilhelmstrasse instead of Wilhelmstraße at Talk:Wilhelmstrasse, I'm looking forward to you removing the funny dot from Klaipėda and Klaipėda Region, too. After all, you are fair and balanced, aren't you? If you're done with that, I'll show you a bunch of other funny names that need your attention, too. --Matthead 16:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

War crimes -- intro
I thought the intro I edited was helpful and clear. If you didn't find it so, could you explain in what way it's deficient, so we can discuss it? Your revert didn't have any explanation, and rather than re-revert I figure it's best to ask you directly what you felt about it. Your edit for ease of reference:. Many thanks. FT2 (Talk 10:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice work! Lets go edit something else now :) FT2 (Talk 23:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

possibility to have reassessment of RM vote
Hi Philip. Because of the newly revealed sockpuppet votes, would it be possible to have a new closing of the RM where Bolesław I the Brave was requested to moved to Boleslaus I of Poland ?

I know such recounts are laborious and no one would happily do something that amounts to double workload, but how do we otherwise control damages caused by sockpuppets? Shilkanni 20:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Oasis of Peace
Hello,

I'm curious as to why you think that the article's title shouldn't be changed (and appreciate that you've removed the edit block).  Tewfik Talk 02:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks,  Tewfik Talk 13:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

William street
The requested move I put up on Wilhelmstrasse has been open for 10 days or so and I was wondering if I could ask you to close it.

If you do, you may or may not be interested in the following facts. Adam Carr has not posted an official vote but his views are abundantly clear. He is also the one responsible for the current location of the article, see and  but an article on the street existed before his time. As can be seen from, news of the vote has been posted on WP:RM (of course) but additionally on the German-speaking notice board (by Angr) and on User talk:Matthead (by me after he came in the middle of the discussion and put ß in the article but did not vote) and User talk:ProhibitOnions (also by me after I noticed that he was having an argument with Adam about the ß in Berlin related articles). Finally, a few of the votes might look a bit suspect with respect to activity on the wiki.
 * I disagree with "Matthead ... but did not vote": --Matthead 21:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, verb constructs got the better of me here, I didn't mean to say that Matthead didn't vote, but that he hadn't voted when I contacted him. Stefán Ingi 14:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In any case, whether or not you do this, you may be interested in knowing that the whole show is beginning again at Talk:Voss-strasse but I promise that I will not start further move requests on Berlin streets. Stefán Ingi 18:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I took a leaf out of your book at Voss-strasse and moved it back to the preference of the first major author (Adam), pending a consensus for another title (going against my own preference). I'm wondering whether we could try to institutionalise something like that. The case is more muddled at Wilhelmstrasse where Adam "moved" the article by essentially writing a new one. Haukur 19:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help in tallying this poll. Stefán Ingi 14:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

A couple of points
Those Japanese/Korean island name move requests boggle my mind. How they could get a clean consensus for the latest move seems surreal but there doesn't seem to have been any procedural flaw.

I've looked at the diacritics proposal and it seems to have improved since Francis' first version. But I doubt a proposal which is perceived as either for or against diacritics will ever gain a consensus, whatever nuances it has. Haukur 18:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving ordinal Congresses
Thank you for your help!

Can you also do something about:
 * Fourth United States Congress → 4th United States Congress
 * Fifteenth United States Congress → 15th United States Congress
 * Twenty-third United States Congress → 23rd United States Congress
 * Thirty-first United States Congress → 31st United States Congress
 * Sixtieth United States Congress → 60th United States Congress

I can't move them either.

(For the complete list, see Category:United States Congresses.)

Thank you. —Markles 19:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

…

Thank you, again. —Markles 21:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wilhelm, Duke of Jülich-Cleves-Berg move proposal
I discounted the 2 semi-supports for the move, as they weren't sure of the numeral to move to. In addition, Dimadick provided evidence that "William" might not be a good name to move to, that the current name was more common according to Google. Hence my closing of the discussion as "no consensus". Kimchi.sg 08:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Hurtgen Forest
I've done a rewrite of this article. I didn't think that the original did justice to the subject. I'd appreciate your comments, criticisms and suggestions. Thanks. Folks at 137 12:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)