User talk:PBS/Archive 7

Torture
I am new to Wikipedia, but honestly and politely trying to improve it. I am sorry that you had to remove so many links. I realize that Wikipedia is not a "link farm," but I had a purpose to put that many links on. I didn't spew links on the page at random. I spent days collecting the links and focused on highly reliable and prominent sources (unlike the sources currently existing in the article). My links were from famous universities, a Nobel Laureate author, international humanitarian groups opposed to Bush, articles supporting Bush (to be evenhanded), etc. I posted about 25 links and intended to write just one single paragraph as a summary of all of them. Currently, despite the fact that torture is in the news, there is very little written about it in Wikipedia. I wonder why you didn't just sift through the links and remove some, but not all of them? I hold no hard feelings, though days of my work were wiped out by your editing.(user: Improve 7:42PM, 20 April, 2007)

International Military Tribunal for the Far East
As noted in my summary, I removed links to article that were generally about war crimes, not specific to the IMTFE. Just because it mentions the trials doesn't make it worth linking to. Some seemed to be possible spam links. --joshuadfranklin 7:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

River Teme
My first reaction to seeing that you had done a revert on this article was that you have deleted what I had done. On looking harder, I saw that you have merely made a minor (and quite proper) correction in the syntax. I have been trying to write so as to be fair to those who hold opposing views to mine, i.e NPOV; indeed the article may give undue prominence to their views. This is why I left a citation of one of pictures allegedly of the Teme with boats. Another file from the same website was cited (with a much longer name), but I suspect that the wrong picture had been uploaded to that website. There is another picture about, but I have only had it from Pat Jones as an e-mail attachment, not found it on the Internet. I do not know where the original is or whose copyright it is.

I tell you this in case somethign else does emerge. However thank you for doing the revert. Peterkingiron 15:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
I noticed that you tagged the page List of war crimes allegations for speedy deletion with the reason "This page is a WP:POVFORK created because of a dissagreement on Talk:List of war crimes over the contents of List of war crimes page. Even if there is eventually a consensus to create such a page it does not exist yet". However, "This page is a WP:POVFORK created because of a dissagreement on Talk:List of war crimes over the contents of List of war crimes page. Even if there is eventually a consensus to create such a page it does not exist yet" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use  if you still want the article to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

AFD vote
I just wanted to drop you a note. I noticed you voted Delete on Articles for deletion/List of war crimes allegations. Based on the comments you've made, I'm presuming you MEANT to vote Merge-- meaning you want the content moved into List of war crimes, not deleted from Wikipedia entirely. If that's correct, you probably should change your vote, so your views doesn't get mis-interpreted. --Alecmconroy 16:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. if you want the content currently on List of war crimes allegations to be put on List of war crimes, then you want it that content MERGED into it. If you don't want that content on wikipedia at all, you want that content DELETED. But, it's your vote, so... say delete if you want, but from everything you told me, I think you very strongly DON'T want that content to be deleted, right? You want it to be put back on List of war crimes, right? --Alecmconroy 16:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get the difference-- if it's merged, the content would be pasted back into the page, but if it's deleted, it wouldn't be. Anyway, you might want to explicitly say what you want to happen, or ask someone more knowledgable than me. lol just don't want you to be butterfly balloted. :) --Alecmconroy 16:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Operation Mars
Please take a look into a huge text added by an anon into Second Rzhev-Sychevka Offensive. I wanted to wikify it then it occurred to me that such a well-rounded text may be a copyvio. Can you bring an attention of other WWII experts, whether you and they recognize the text? `'mikka (t) 18:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Vanity
Is this page vanity or not: Mikhail Lebedev --GoOdCoNtEnT 08:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Genocides in history
Thank you very much for your reply to my rather tart question. The intention seems fair enough, though there should be a quick mention that:
 * the legal form of genocide can only consist of those since the law was adopted, and that
 * earlier acts are listed for historical and humanitarian aspects of this article.

Speaking of which, could someone please include Guatemala 1960-1996, and West Papua 1966-2006+. Perhaps a short list in both periods, which would also be fair as the UN should have spoken about about both when it revived its reviews in the 1990s.211.30.222.139 01:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

On the HREOC website you can find an FAQ about the Stolen Generation that explains


 * What does that have to do with Guatemala or West Papua ? Perhaps you could learn about the crime of genocide before denying such crimes, "Indonesian Human Rights Abuses in West Papua: Application of the Law of Genocide to the History of Indonesian Control" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.107.15.245 (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

7. Why was the forcible removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children genocide? The crime of genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate physical destruction of a group. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was adopted by the United Nations in 1948 and ratified by Australia in 1949, defines genocide in Article II as such:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ehnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm of members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the groups (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The Convention recognises that genocide is a crime against humanity and expressed a shared international outrage about genocide and empowered any country to prosecute an offender.

The Inquiry’s examination of historical documents found that the clear intent of removal policies was to absorb, merge or assimilate children so that Aboriginal people, as a distinct racial group, would disappear.

Policies and laws are genocidal even if they are not solely motivated by animosity or hatred. The Inquiry found that a principle aim of removing children was to eliminate Indigenous cultures as distinct entities. The fact that people may have believed they were removing Indigenous children for ‘their own good’ was immaterial. The removal remains genocidal.

The Inquiry found that the forcible removal of Indigenous children was a gross violation of their human rights. It was racially discriminatory and continued after Australia, as a member of the United Nations from 1945, committed itself to abolish racial discrimination.

The Inquiry also concluded that even before international human rights law developed in the 1940s the treatment of Indigenous people breached Australian legal standards.

Fyntan 12:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Column
Please note that the faulty historiography started by Sir Charles Oman on the French tactical system during the French Revolutionary and the Napoleonic wars has been corrected in modern times. The French did not actually attack with columns for most of that period; the "colonne d'attaque" was a columnar method of maneuver, not of attack. When French soldiers got sufficiently close to the enemy for attack, they almost always deployed into lines. At Waterloo....they deployed into lines. Wellington most likely made that comment because he saw them coming in columns, but they would not have attacked that way (and in fact they didn't). Hope this clarifies the matter.UberCryxic 15:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Jan Smuts
As one who has previously contributed to the above article, you might be interested to know that the Early life of Jan Smuts (childhood and early adulthood, 1870-1895) is up for FA nomination at the moment. Any contribution, whether a vote for/against or a suggestion for improvement, would be very much appreciated. The eventual intention is to raise Jan Smuts and its detailed sub-articles to FAs - this is the first to be completed and to go forward for nomination.

Featured_article_candidates/Early life of Jan Smuts

Best wishes,  X damr  talk 15:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

dablinks versus "See also"
Hello. I think your edits to killing field on November 15, 2005, were a mistake, which I've remedied in this edit. That's how this should be done. Michael Hardy 23:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism article
You've suggested and edited a change in the first sentence of the article and I've supported it. Someone has reverted it back and to my surprise you didn't discuss the issue further. As I don't know what has motivated you to advance the change, maybe you could tell me something about. DavidMarciano 14:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Allied War Crimes
Hello. I wonder if I can ask for your assistance? I have seen your name on the Allied war crimes during World War II talk page, and I think you have a good grasp of the main issues involved. I put an NPOV tag on this page, because I do not agree with some of the interpretations and I question the political objectivity of the sources, with particular reference to the Allied strategic air offensive. Recently some attempt has been made to remove this by one user in the face of very clear objections I have set out on the talk page. It's now reinstated, with more reasons for doing so. Can it be right that my objections are 'airbrushed' out in this fashion, as they will be again, I feel sure, in the near future? I am new here, and am still finding my way around, but it seems to me that this must be a breach of protocol? I would appreciate any help you can offer. Thanks. White Guard 23:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Philip, in case you retain an interest I just thought I would let you know that user Mitsos is a Greek Nazi-and I use this in a strictly descriptive sense. Have a look at some of his bon mot in my latest post to the above page. Best wishes. White Guard 23:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

NC military units
Hi there! There appears to be no recent discussion on the proposed naming convention on military units. Could you please enlighten me if the current text is accepted, or if development has died down, or if it should be advertised to get more feedback, or something else? Thanks. &gt; R a d i a n t &lt; 22:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That was brief :) if I understand correctly, you mean that more feedback would be required but at the moment nobody is really giving feedback? &gt; R a d i a n t &lt; 13:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Bombing of Dresden
Please stop reverting without addressing any of the qualms I have brought forth. Are you a Wiki Administrator? This is not acceptable.--72.94.90.144 00:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Genocide in History
I don't know if you saw it, but someone blanked out part of this page. I'm not sure why. Anyway since you edit it quite often, I thought I'd tell you so you could keep an eye on it. Davidpdx 07:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Middle Eastern theatre
See Middle Eastern theatre of World War I

I do not know what is in your mind? ALSO Why are you constantly reverting the document to the shameful structure. All the military articles follow a time line. The version you are reverting is not. This article is disorganized and not acceptable on any level. The text has no meaning in many parts. If you have a valid reason to keep it in this poor level, I would like to hear that. If you want to own the article, that is fine but please bring it to some decent level. It might be interesting to learn your reasons. I check the history of the article, it seems you keep that document in this poor level. Please lets WORK on this together. Stop reverting it and add or improve the changes. THANKS--OttomanReference 00:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If we keep it as it is; as the campaign's have their own pages, that makes this article a collection of introduction sections of these campaigns. IT should be the main reason to change the article to a time line, so that the links between the campaings can be build. Otherwise what is the use of this article? IT BECOMES a copy cat of the campaigns. ALSO it is naive to assume that the campaigns did not have any higher order links to each other. Ottomans constantly moved sources between the fronts, which falsifies the idea that campaigns were different from each other. Also politically and time wise these campaigns were related to each other. Summary (a)we need an article that tells what happened each year (b) we need to tell why other fronts opened when Gallipoli did not work (c) we need to tell the movement of the forces among the fronts to show how political decisions were reflected on the battle field decisions. (d) brought this article to a unique level that would break the current "just the collections of introduction sections" THANKS--OttomanReference 00:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * PBS: I do not think that the all of article should be arranged chronologically I do not know why you say that because the article has the campaigns listed at the beginning of the sections. If there is another way to do it, I would appreciate to learn that. However, I might be missing your point, as campaigns are there at the beginning of every paragraph, ALREADY. THANKS--OttomanReference 00:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Genocide in Direct Action Day
I have found some sources, but they may be considered biased. What do you think of them?  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 00:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * http://www.newstodaynet.com/2006sud/06jan/1101ss1.htm
 * http://www.hinduweb.org/home/sikh/rverma/bsingh2.html
 * http://www.voi.org/books/mla/ch3.htm
 * Thank-you for your comments. I do know the Point of View of the rioters on this day and can write on it, for now I will have to search for a reliable source which labels it genocide. Regards.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 01:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Lvov-Sandomierz_Offensive
Noticed that you might be among the experts on this one. Have reverted what appears to be vandalism on the Polish Home Army or something of the sort liberating Lvov before the Russians got there, but am not sure whether it's correct. Could you take a look, or direct someone who knows about that period towards it, and add some sources? Cheers Buckshot06 10:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Dresden Talk Edits
Looks like you were commenting on the Bombing of Dresden in World War II talk page at the same time I was writing. Hope you can still follow what I wrote.--72.92.120.106 17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines
Guidelines only exist when there is a consensus for them. You don't need a "consensus to remove" the template. You need to achieve consensus to put it there. The very existence of the "disputed" template means that it isn't a guideline. You can't have both templates on the same page. They're mutually exclusive.

Please read Policies and guidelines, How to create policy and discuss this on the talk page before editing the article again. — Omegatron 00:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Responded on my talk. — Omegatron 01:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey Q
Have you ever been to the southern hemisphere, click here to reply.AstroBoy 01:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Deadline for entries is December 15th

Herd behavior
Hi PBS. A VERY LONG TIME ago, you commented on the Talk:Herd behavior page about a potential MERGE. That discussion ended. More recently, another different merge discussion was started by someone, and it now appears that a wiki-consensus has been reached on the merge. I also learned there was a third Herd article, not merely the two involved in the merge discussion. There is now a question as to the best name for the new combined page. I would very much like to have a decently wide consensus on the best NAME before we merge the two (still muddled) articles, so if you would be willing to weigh in, that would really help. (as would input from any other interested wikipedians) N2e 16:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much PBS for weighing in with an opinion. Your input is important.  I will comment over on that talk page, but one reason I suspect that there are several current WP articles about 'herd' behavior applied to humans is that it is not uncommon to do so within the social science literature.  The current discussion started out to get two such WP articles merged down to one.  Perhaps there is a broader 'project' that could also usefully be accomplished with respect to the broader subject.  With respect to your comment on eliminating the word 'herd' completely, I would just offer a thought.  As an encyclopedia, WP probably needs to discuss some topics in whatever terms of language that are "out there," even if the word 'herd' is pejoritive to some individuals. Again, thanks for weighing in! N2e 21:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
Please tell me the difference between the "netural point of view" on Wikipedia for Dokdo and Senkaku. Both are islands under dispute. But one gets special treatment while the other is subject to changes after changes after changes. If you agree with Dokdo moving to its alledged neutral page name, should you not also agree with the page Senkaku moving to its alledged "English-neutral" name as well? Or do people have a favourite country they just assume is always right? dandan xD 22:21, 18 November 2006 (KST)

Bunbury Agreement
You should have used your sandbox or stayed in the preview mode. What exactly makes you think that you can remove Speedy Deletion templates? John Reaves 14:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Shock Troops
On the page Shock troops The edit by SmackBot got the month wrong. (Revision as of 06:29, 6 August 2006) --PBS 00:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Of necessity the months are an approximation, since the lists are compiled form historical data umps which occured at "random" times. I have changed the edit sumary to reflect this.  Rich   Farmbrough 08:10 30  November 2006 (UTC).

Bangladesh Liberation War
Hi Philip, I request you to stop moving the article again and again. I will respond to your points soon. You are moving it without having a discussion (and referring to a 1 year old inconclusive discussion).

Thank you. --Ragib 21:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia links in lieu of sources
Actually, I have explained twice: once in the same section and once in a later section. I'll take another crack at it, though. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC on Mitsos
Hi. I'm acting as advocate for an editor who has been having issues with Mitsos. As part of the DR process, we have opened an RfC in order to get community input on behavior that several users feel is uncivil and biased. Seeing as how you have interacted with Mitsos in the past, we would appreciate any input you may have on the matter. Please visit the Request for Comment page and leave your thoughts. Thanks very much, →Bobby ← 16:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sections
I noticed that you had moved a couple of sections tags from article pages to talk pages. Editorial suggestion templates normally go on the main article page, and the discussion page for that template specifically notes this as proper practice. I've moved a couple back, and more importantly am starting to address the backlog and actually add section headers. Matchups 03:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the reasoning behind your comment that tags such as this belong on talk pages, but that's a minority opinion. I suggest that you open a discussion at the village pump, and if you can generate a consensus in support of your view, I would be happy to comply. Matchups 16:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Bombing of Zara
I've inserted good English links for the Bombing_of_Zara_in_World_War_II. If you like, have a look. Greetings.--Giovanni Giove 16:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Autogenocide
Please see Talk:Autogenocide Mukadderat 17:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Sabra and Shatila
Good and serious work. Congratulations ! My comments Alithien 08:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI Alithien 07:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Shock troops
Hi Philip. In the middle ages armoured warriors mounted on horseback were considered shock troops. You can check Delbruck, Oman, Smail etc.. At first I wanted to create a different article about shock units but seeing the shock troops article I decided to write it there. I want to write about units which are speciallized in shock tactics like the medieval knight, lancers, etc. I also think that Panzer units of WWII can be considered shock units as well. So, if you don't think that shock troops other then the Sturmbatallione should be in that article then offer me a different title for it. Nik Sage • Talk 01:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude, you still haven't answer me about the shock troops issue. Nik Sage • Talk 09:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
I apologize for RVing a batch of edits that you clearly put some time and effort into, but overall they were IMO a significant detriment to the article. I simply can't accept that putting the cite book references into a single line is anything other than a huge step backwards in the quality of the article. Of course, this change makes no difference to the reader, but for an editor it turns a clear and easily editable citation into an unreadable jumble. Furthermore, I can't see any value to such a change at all. I know you made a lot of other changes, and I'm not sure what some of them were, since your edit summary comments are unclear and version comparisons are often unhelpful. If you want to pursue any of your changes, let's discuss the issues before you do so. KarlBunker 16:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Western Front (World War II)
Philip, your comments on my user page are fair. I believe that there should be at least one more subsection to the "hindsight" section, and that is a discussion of what went right as opposed to the general tone of the section, which highlights mistakes and gives the section a negative feel.

I'm not quite convinced the other text of the article is only a list of facts; for example, an older version of the text lent the impression that the Battle of the Scheldt was simply a great Allied victory. It was an essential victory, but I think that mention of the avoidable delays and perhaps the chance to avoid the battle at all also bears mention, if for no other reason than to place the events in perspective.

I agree the section may attract comments from time to time that Wiki may deem undesirable. Please understand it is not my desire to make the article a flame target. It will be edited by others, and I hope for the better. If you think it unbalanced, I welcome suggestions to improve it, and I hope my efforts to footnote the section are indicative of my good will in this effort.

Cheers

W. B. Wilson 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Unlawful combatant
Hi, Philip. Long time no see.

Are stress positions as used in rough interrogation a form of torture? If so, who says so? Or who says not? --Uncle Ed 18:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Richard Lindon
Please do not remove maintenance notices from pages unless the required changes have been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page. Thank you. Valrith 21:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: False flag In english please.
It's not always appropriate to remove changes simply because the Sources are not in English. Per WP:CITE, "However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it." Removing a large section of work simply over three French original-language quotes can be easily misinterpreted. Logical2uTalk 00:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you refering to the sources or to the language? In any cases, WP:CS admits the use of non-English sources which are often more easily accessible concerning non-English speaking topics. About the language, guidelines do not say that you must revert it if the grammar is not good enough, but fixed. Thanks for your attention, Tazmaniacs 04:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: last rv on Consensus
Hello, I don't see any further discussion on the talk page? (Nor implementation of what was suggested at talk page)... are you still typing perhaps? :-)

--Kim Bruning 17:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, you seem to have accidentally used Rollback at Consensus. Could you please supply a valid motivation for your changes? --Kim Bruning 00:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining, now I can see at least part of the problem and do something about it. Not sure if the next edits are the solution you're looking for, but at least the wording is a bit clearer now. Feedback appreciated! :) --Kim Bruning 03:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I might have a feeling where this is going. I know I'm chomping at the bit to reply more in general and integrate what you're saying, but first I'd better listen carefully, eh? :-) (See consensus talk page) --Kim Bruning 18:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.
Something went wrong here. I was interested in reading your comment, but it appears to end in the middle! Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

List of massacres
Hi Phillip Baird Shearer,

I reverted your removal of items from the List of massacres. Your point about with the laws of war are up for interpretation. The ones which you removed were those which were essentially non-military targets. Whether they were prosecuted or not, does not make them less of a loss of life. Of course, prosecution is done by the winners of a conflict rather than the losers. The innocents are still dead...

Maybe tagging them as being of a different category in a footnote would be more appropriate than their direct removal?

Please feel free to re-do your removals if you feel strongly and choose to leave further explanation within the talk page. Try to achieve consensus rather than making a unilateral decision, please.

Thanks for considering another opinion.

Take care,

Larry Lmcelhiney 18:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

TNA iMPACT!
Consensus or no consensus, our naming conventions demand the move. Consensus in the discussion was clearly in favour of the move, as none of the opposing opinions provided a valid reason to do so. Last time I checked, these judgements were supposed to be based on weighing up the reasoning, not pure numbers. Chris cheese whine 17:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a lots of words to say nothing at all, and I'm sure many political figures could learn a lot from a non-committal committal such as that. Unfortunately, this doesn't change anything - I cannot possibly see how you could have reached the decision you did other than by counting numbers.  No valid reason was presented in the debate for not moving the page, whereas several very valid reasons were presented in favour of moving it.  Chris cheese whine 18:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that on the main TNA Impact talk page there was a higher number in support of the move, I am backing up Chriscf here. Naming conventions address the fact that the page should have been moved, and none of the opposers addressed that beyond saying "that's the typography TNA uses". Voretus 18:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Please also see my comments on the TNA Impact talk page. You've misinterpreted the MoS and the point in even having an MoS if you think that content and titles have two separate conventions. ju66l3r 20:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He made the right decision. Also, the naming convention is only a guideline, not policy and there was no consenus to move the page. TJ Spyke 23:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the decision not to move, perhaps for slightly different reasons than the above. I think there's a general consensus among the community not to humour trademark holders, bands, etc, when it comes to non-standard capitalizations. The TNA iMPACT! pages were unusual in having more than usual support for the special typography, but I don't think that changes the overall consensus, whether or not it's codified particularly clearly in policy/guidelines at this time. I suspect that these pages will be nominated for moving again in the future, because they stand now as exceptions to the general trend. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like Cheese Wine went ahead and move the pages anyways, and edited the redirects so only admins can move them back. TJ Spyke 10:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * AThe moves were reversible per ArbCom ruling anyway for deliberate bad-faith creation of artificial history in the article (there is no way adding a "." to the page constitutes a good-faith edit). Chris cheese whine 10:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Philip, hi. I have to ask, regarding the move poll at Talk:TNA Impact!, whether you would have closed it differently had I registered a numbered "!vote" instead of simply contributing to the discussion? I ask because I was reading an old, unrelated RM discussion, and I noticed you there, referring to a 60% threshhold, which I've never heard of before, except from you. Then I realized that my support at TNA Impact! does put the number over that percentage.

Independently of the current situation, I'm kind of curious how you arrived at 60% as a threshhold. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying at my talk page. I read the links you left me, but I'm still unsettled by your reply.  You said that "I spent half the day making decisions on the backlog and I was not going to spend long wadeing through lots of verbage."  I certainly appreciate the help clearing the backlog, but I would hate for you to think that there's some hurry about page moves that is more important than reading each discussion carefully and weighing each editor's position.
 * I'm further disturbed that you seem to have a formula for whether or not to move depending on how many people express support vs. opposition. That flies in the face of what I feel I've been taught about Wikipedia not being a democracy.  If moves are decided on numbers, then haven't we given ourselves over to the tyranny of the majority?  Why should the side best able to "get out the vote" win?  I also noticed that your edit to the WP:RM header about approval voting was reverted by multiple admins, on the grounds that we don't encourage decision-by-voting here.
 * When I'm closing move requests, I always try to weigh arguments rather than counting votes, and I give a lot of thought to each decision in the context of other move requests, and our naming conventions, both established and under development. After six months of daily work at that page, I feel I'm getting a decent understanding of how titles work at Wikipedia.  I realize that backlog piles up, and help is always appreciated, but I'm concerned that closing requests in such a way that my support is lost if I don't enter it as a "vote", with a number by it, is a bit too hasty, and contrary to the spirit of WP:NOT a democracy and WP:PNSD.
 * I'm open to talking about this, and to soliciting broader input, but at this point, I would have to say I disagree with any numerical formula for deciding whether to complete a move. Our naming conventions have developed to the point that someone can generally argue for a "correct" name, according to our guidelines.  I feel our job as administrators is to act as a rational judge of those arguments, not as a vote-counter. -GTBacchus(talk) 10:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that we arrive at a lot of the same conclusions by somewhat different trains of thought. Your description of "imposing my interpretation of those guidelines on other people" isn't what I see myself doing at RM; you may disagree. I figure I'll just keep closing moves as I think it should be done, and you'll do the same, and I'm sure Wikipedia will be fine. If I find myself taking a side in any further discussions, I'll be sure to put a number next to my "!vote". -GTBacchus(talk) 11:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Wizardly move!
Thank you for the Wizard (fantasy) move! It was such the right thing to do, and I'm so happy to see such a great and thoughtful response! Dreadlocke ☥  02:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Err -- excuse me? I don't get this at all.  The page that has the comment on the talk page about the move was "List of wizards in fantasy", which is still there.  The page that got moved to "Wizard (fantasy)" was "List of magicians in fantasy" which was the page that "List of wizards in fantasy" redirected to.  I think something may have gotten messed up. . . Goldfritha 02:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, boy. I guess I'm totally confused now.  Goldfritha, what needs to be done to set this right?  Thanks Philip for helping us out with this.  Dreadlocke  ☥  02:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess we need to: then we're good to go. Dreadlocke ☥  03:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Move "list of magicians in fantasy" from "wizard (fantasy)" back to the original name: "list of magicians in fantasy", then
 * Move "list of wizards in fantasy" to "wizard (fantasy)" per Talk:List_of_wizards_in_fantasy,
 * Yes, I think that would fix it -- I think the problem was that going to the "List of wizards" meant getting caught by the redirect, which you would then have to backtrack to move the actual article. Goldfritha 03:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Rejs/The Cruise
Hello. Well, I see there was a lack of consensus for the move to Rejs, and I accept the decision as fair. The only point I'd differ on, if just for clarity, is that this was not a proposed move within 24 hours. I'm not sure when the article "Rejs" was originally created, but I believe it was a long time ago, and there may have been many months between moves (I'm no longer sure, lacking a history). I made the error of starting to port the article over by a copy and paste move, before realizing that this was incorrect procedure. Then I put the articles back as they were and initiated a proposed move discussion. It seems my first error caused confusion in the timeline of events. Anyhow, thanks for giving this your time. zadignose 05:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Truth Commission
Thanks for your help! Tazmaniacs 16:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin
Excellent re-write of Nordland section. Mkpumphrey 19:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If you do not mind my asking, what is your interest (if any) in Castle Pontefract? I have been told that it is the source of my last name. Mkpumphrey 19:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerning your recent User talk (below), I agree. "Page sizes should not go over 32K. This page is now at 39K. I think that the Battle of Berlin section is becoming too German intensive. It should be more about the Soviets who after all had the initiative and were fighting the battle on their terms. --PBS 00:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)"

I am not too sure that I am the best one to lead on reducing the page size. But I am more than willing to assist. However, I would suggest keeping as much of the "battle" part of the "Battle for Berlin" as is possible. In my opinion, it might be best to cut down on most of the "background" that goes back before February. It may also be a good idea to spin off all of the two subordinate battles and just reference them with a link.

I also thought that the article was getting a little too "German" oriented. Much of that "Last Days of Hitler"-type stuff that I have been adding might be better in the article that no doubt exists for "Adolf Hitler". I do have an April 27 Soviet news agency announcement that would probably go well with the article AFTER it sheds some words.

Mkpumphrey 01:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed the "Battle of Berlin (air)" link at the top of the article. OOPS! The little blurb I added looks quite pitiful now. I will remove it.

I also looked at the discussions directly linked to the article. OUCH. I had no idea that the opinions on some of this material could be so s-p-r-e-a-d o-u-t.

Mkpumphrey 01:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, excellent comments. Concerning my "bombing paragraph", I went ahead and removed everything except the first sentence. I only left the first sentence since it has the "Bombing of Berlin in World War II" link embedded in it. I saw nothing that my material added to that article. Also, the remaining sentence appears (to me) to need relocating. I am not sure where it should go. But, as you will see, it looks out of place right now.

Question: Do you prefer using roman numerals for the German army numbers? Most everywhere else (in Wikipedia) the XII Army and the IX Army are shown as the 12th Army and the 9th Army. German corps tend to be represented by roman numerals. On the other hand, I have almost always seen references to the Italian 8th Army in Russia while it was the Italian X Army that advanced into Egypt in 1940.

Mkpumphrey 14:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you consider moving the "Battle of the Oder-Neisse" section out of the "Battle for Berlin" article? I found a "Battle of the Oder-Neisse" article (yours?) and the write-up in the "Battle for Berlin" article is much more detailed. The "Battle of the Oder-Neisse" article would benefit greatly from all the new information. A "Battle of the Oder-Neisse" link would need to be added of course. Mkpumphrey 14:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Added some "Last Days of Berlin" stuff in tonight. Tried to add as much Chuikov material as I could find.

I was just looking at the "Hanna Reitsch" article. Her article has her flying a "Fieseler Fi 156 Storch" into Berlin. . . and not an Arado. Any idea which craft is correct? I was about to correct the Storch and thought I should check just to be sure. Mkpumphrey 00:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are correct about "Unter den Linden". I thought I had a source. But, instead, I found things like "the street from the Brandengurg Gate" or "a street near the Brandenburg gate where the trees had been removed (cut down?)". Mkpumphrey 01:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the "Trivia" thing. I am not sure what I was thinking. Mkpumphrey 18:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice to hear from you. I took a quick look at the "Battle IN Berlin".  Is this an "official" article already?  Title seems a luittle too similar to Battle FOR Berlin.  Wish I had a suggestion for a better title, but I do not.  Since, as you have correctly pointed out, the actual "battle" was for all intents and purposes over by this point.  Unfortunately the Last Days in Berlin seems a bit dramatic.  Have you considered adding the following item found on most of the articles about the people in Berlin at the end:


 * ? Mkpumphrey 12:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Move request not completed
I noticed you closed the move request at Talk:49th Grammy Awards but never actually completed the moves. You may want to at least do a couple. --  tariq abjotu  00:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Moves and content
I do not understand your comment about not being able to move "List of wizards in fantasy" because it is a redirect and has no content. That is exactly what Dreadlocke and I were complaining of. "Wizard (fantasy)" was a redirect. jc37 moved it to "List of wizards in fantasy". If redirects can't be moved, I would think reversing his action would be mandatory.

If it does not mean that redirect can't be moved -- well, what does it mean? Goldfritha 01:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:jadger
alright, you got me there, lol. but here you can see why they don't get referred to as "emperor/empress". So, in a way it is voluntary on the part of the British monarchs to be called a lesser title.

--Jadger 19:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for info on pic
Hi, lot of thanks for clearing up my doubts about the identity of the building in the pic. Can you plz identify the building. LegalEagle 05:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS
A revert without a discussion does not help anyone understand your concerns, neither it helps in clarifying the issues being discussed there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Charles I death warrant
Following your reversion, I have added my arguments for a change to the Talk:Second English Civil War. Rjm at sleepers 09:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

RAF
Actually I've just stumbled into exactly the article where it should be moved: Active measures. If you took the time to look a bit on declassified archives, I'm sure you would stumble into real false flag attacks committed by the Soviets. But I think the RAF material should be moved there. Tazmaniacs 12:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Disarmed Enemy Forces
I'm curious about the sentence you wrote that "Disarmed Enemy Forces was a designation for soldiers who surrendered to an adversary after hostilites ended." I believe that may be in error. Do you have any source for that definition? This link seems to say that DEF status was given to POWs already held in the U.S. as well. Also, werent the Rhine camps populated with prisoners caught in the collapse of the Ruhr Pocket, i.e. very much people who surrendered during the war?--Stor stark7 Talk 21:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This was a good link: (I did a plain copy-paste, hence the weird spelling) (page 131) "Status of "Disarmed Knew Forces," To have taken into custod;- as prisoners of war, who would be entitled to rations equivalent to those of American base troops, the large nmbers of Germans who were surrendering in April and Eay would have inmlved feeding patently beyond the ability of the Allies, even i f a l l available German supplies were tapped. Uoreover, it would have been undesirable to furnish troops with rations f a r i n excess of those available t o the c i v i l population.(306) Consequently, the Var Department approved treating all meirbers of the German armed forces captured after the declaration of ECLIISE conditions, or the cessaLion of h o s t i l i t i e s, and all prisoners of war not evacuated from Gemany %mediately after the conclusion of h o s t i l i t i e s , as Wisamed enemy forces," and specified that such captives would be responsible for feeding and maintaining themselves. crimhals, wanted individuals, and security suspects, who were to be imprisoned, fed, and controlled by Allied forces. The Xar Department further directed that there be no public declaration made on the status of the German armed forces.(307)"

The wording as it stands in the DEF article at the moment only takes account of part of the DEF. --Stor stark7 Talk 18:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Maintenance tags should go on the talk page
I've reposted your Wikipedia talk:Maintenance suggestion to the Village Pump at WP:VPP, and have replied to it there. It's also received another response already.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist  00:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

High Court of Justice
I've created a new page about the High Court of Justice for the trial of Charles I. I'd be grateful if you can have a look at this. Rjm at sleepers 09:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll try to find a source for the army council quotation - I copied it from the regicides page where it is similarly unsourced. You've also tagged "this sparked further royalist uprisings which were known as the third civil war" with citation needed. Were you suggesting the need for a citation that the execution sparked royalist uprisings or a citation that confirms the name third civil war? Rjm at sleepers 07:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * it is the presumption that the execution sparked further royalist uprisings. I think you can build a case for saying that with the execution of Charles the I the crown was then free (no longer imprisoned in England) for the Scots to place it upon the head of Charles II so starting the Third Civil War, but I am not sure one can argue that the execution it sparked further (English) royalist uprisings. Either which way it is drawing a conclusion that ought to be sourced. If one just blandly says that "A year and a half after the execution the Scots proclaimed Charles II king of Scotland, and this ignited the Third Civil War.", then one is on far safer ground as it is a statement of fact not inference. --PBS 07:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've reworded it - see what you think. Rjm at sleepers 08:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

McFly (band)
I was just asking.. when you said that the discussion was closed over on the Talk Page of McFly (band) and that McFly (band) should be located at McFly.. you didn't go ahead and complete the move of the page. I was wondering if you could do this for me, and other McFly editors. Thanks, -  ǀ Mikay ǀ   20:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Captain Patrick Heenan of the Indian Army
Hi Phil. Knowing of your interest in such matters, I thought you might want to have a look at Patrick Stanley Vaughan Heenan, which I have just created. Grant | Talk 06:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Historical Eastern Germany
I think you'll be quite interested in this:Talk:Historical_Eastern_Germany. -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 04:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

GFDL
The requirements of the GFDL, which both Wikipedia and Wikinfo are subject to, require maintenance of a link back to the original source, see the first edit. This applies regardless of the number of changes made to the article. Fred Bauder 17:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

ODNB
What is ODNB? please put it in as a reference. --PBS 11:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I've added Oxford Dictionary of National Biography as a reference on the regicides page. Rjm at sleepers 11:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR violation
Thanks for warning me...I've reported myself to an admin. However, I would caution you back that the proper procedure is to not readd material until consensus is reached. It doesn't matter that you added it in 2005. The current text was achieved by consensus, and it is wrong of you to change it while discussion is underway. Akradecki 18:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears that the WP:3RR violation was inadvertant. I cant see blocking for something done on accident, and being the 1st reversion was so far back in the 24 hour period, it seems like a plausible mistake.  I reccomend working out or I will kindly protect the page until it gets works out. (Unfortunatly, that is sometimes the only way to stop edit warring and force discourse). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I apoliagize if I stepped on your toes here Philip. I have worked with Akradecki for a while and he has always shown good faith.  I hope he will revert his his extra reversion as a proof of good faith. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have also left him a note on his page reccomending he do that as well. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sweet, I just wanted to make sure i was not stepping in here. I try to be as helpful as I can and until I have seen proof of bad faith, I always try to assume good faith.  I can see how it would be construed as bad faith, and if it happened again, I would be tempted to believe it was.  But, the way it stands is I have worked with him for a while and I can see how it is an honest mistake.  Btw, you are a good man for not letting admin get in the way of conflicts! That is the way it should be, keep up the good work. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Self revert done. However, I must say, I was really disappointed in learning that you're an admin and yet are unwilling to wait until a new consensus is reached before going against an existing one. Yes, I understand consensus changes, and it's perfectly valid to bring an issue back up. But when you're informed that the current state of things was based on a lot of work to build a consensus, I would expect that you would respect that, especially as an admin, and follow the correct path of discussing first before repeatedly insisting on your way. Akradecki 20:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Front (WWII)/rewrite
The reason given by the tagger was "Housekeeping. Wrong namespace and in any case, the page has not had a significant edit since August 2005." That seemed accurate to me. Let me know if the article is needed for some reason. NawlinWiki 20:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Arigato1 Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
This user appears to causing an untoward amount of disruption to the project. If he doesn't calm down and start contributing value in his/her edits, I'll support a community ban of the account. Cla68 23:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at his/her contribution log today, the same pattern continues. What's the next step? Cla68 23:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Extraordinary rendition
I just wanted to commend you on your logic and effort to find a truly neutral formulation for the lede of this article. I found your view persuasive, especially where you reverse the formulation of the first sentence. I think the new revision should begin "ER and TPB are terms used to describe." That is objectively true no matter where you stand, and hard to dispute. I didn't see it that way to start, but I think I was wrong before. Keep up the good work. Kaisershatner 15:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture
Much better!! Thanks.

Guantanamo v. Guantánamo
I reverted your edit to the Guantanamo Bay article - I left a more thorough explanation on its talk page, but my basic motivation is that the accent is, indeed, required when pronounced in Spanish. PaladinWhite 13:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk page
Altered accordingly and thanks. Tirronan 22:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Eleventh SS Panzer Army
Hello PBS,

You may wish to note in your article that the 11th was reorganized (assigned to command new units) for combat against the western Allies in March 1945. Surrender date of the the 11th is noted as April 21. As well, the 11th is shown as subordinated directly to OB West in April, and is noted as having defended the Weser River and the Harz Mountains. (All this per Volume 3 of Georg Tessin's Verbände und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS 1939 - 1945). As the article reads now, one could receive the impression that the 11th became Armee-Abteilung Steiner and remained facing the Red Army.

Cheers W. B. Wilson 04:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Information from Tessin placed on the article's discussion page.
 * Cheers
 * W. B. Wilson 17:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Robert Lockyer
You're welcome! Jlittlet 20:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

uncat and maintenance templates on talk pages
Of course, if you were going to categorise it anyway, for which thanks, moving the template was somewhat moot... I think I'd have to join the dissenters on this in general, and certainly in the particular case of this template. But I'll be sure to mention it to the "consumers" of this cleanup resource, and poll what they think. Alai 03:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In the last 6 months, I've been one of the most active "categorizers" and I strongly object to the idea of moving this template to the talk page. It's important for this tag to be as visible as possible. I am convinced that the backlog would not be kept under control (as it currently is) where it not for the participation of casual readers who bump into pages with the tag and categorize articles. If we start putting uncat tags on talk pages, I guarantee you'll get tons of articles that are categorized yet still have a tag because nobody notices it. Sure, we could have bots remove these but why waste resources on trivial tasks? And in any case, this makes the categorization task more tedious since one has to edit both the article and the talk page. I know it may sound like a negligible disadvantage but I've gotten pretty efficient at this and I tell you, this would slow me down by a factor of two. Also, the discussion you point to is hardly conclusive. Before overhauling the practices of tag placement, it's really important to consult people who use them most. As someone who does a lot of maintenance work, I'd be pretty unhappy about the change. Pascal.Tesson 17:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As a member of the Uncategorized Task Force (just like Alai and Pascal), I agree with the above. Keep the tags on the article page. It makes perfect sense; for one thing, it is easier to categorize an article and remove the tag all in one edit. There are more reason's that I won't go into, but hopefully you get the point that consensus is against you here. Sorry. → Ed Gl  18:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC) (P.S., Care to join the task force? =) Help is appreciated.)

Please read Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation/article Please place any other comments either there or Template talk:Uncategorized Thanks --PBS 18:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your recent wp:RS revert
I agree with it I *think* and posted on Slim Virgin's page. You might want to look there. -Blue Tie 23:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

German 9th Parachute Division
Yes I know, I guess I was just venting... I should have checked first, but I've become so used to any units I was working on being under the new standard (I think most British units were moved en masse) that I only noticed that article existed when I checked a wikilink I planned to include in that stub. And yes, British units would have been better under 1st Infantry Division (Britain), guess we'll have to live with that now.--Caranorn 15:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

About your actions on the genocide page
I don't understand what you did or why you did it. Please explain yourself. --EricSRodrigues154 23:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Genocide&action=history

On the Portal:Genocide I have reverted back to articles 9 & 10. They are related to genocide. The relationship between 'genocide' and an 'internment camp' is that both seperate and discriminate against people simply because of who they identify themselves as- ie. Jewish, Japanese, Armenian, Communists, etc. THe difference between the two is that a genocide results from killing people based upon those catagories. Essentially, an 'internment camp'/'concentration camp' are often precursers to genocide - ie. the actual killing of people based upon identified catagories. Over the weekend I am going to clean up the articles a bit, though, to clarify that relationship a bit more. In part, the purpose of the two articles was to provide information on the differences/simularities between a concentration camp and an internment camp. --user:EricSRodrigues154 04:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Weidendammer-bridge.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Weidendammer-bridge.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 18:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The "laws" of torture
Thank you for the appropriate quotation. My grandmother's way of stating Kant's fundamental ethical principle was, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." I have noticed lately that we seem to have a number of mute swans that will not sing their swan songs, and they are the fine-feathered creatures that have been mowing down our human laws.... P0M 16:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Craig Ferguson 3O
Please view my follow-up here. Thank you. 67.101.243.74 05:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Query
Could you address this, please? You're objecting to a certain sentence, but you're the one who keeps restoring it. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Historical revisionism (negationism)
Hi. You restored a particular reference for the use of 'negationism' in the above article. I'm afraid it doesnt qualify as an encyclopaedic reference; Koenraad Elst, as his wp bio will show, is something of a fringe scholar in historical terms, and his use of the word is particularly coloured by both his polemic and cultural background (he is Belgian); it is thus does not serve as an argument for the increasing use of the word in the mainstream. More generally, that sentence sounds like OR to me. One would imagine that a reliable peer-reviewed source has actually discussed the increasing use of the word and could be cited. Hornplease 21:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Steel359
Thank you for responding to a third opinion request. Stee359 has responded on his talk page to your response: another version of go away. I don't feel this is civil or justified. His vengeful change of version on RHell is also inappropriate (seems purely personal). I did nothing wrong but flag his attention to something in a civil matter and follow up. Please take this further or tell me how to. There is no point in my creating a talk page as he's said he won't respond. Considering he's protected a page (RHell) that is also inappropriate; if he can't administer he should publicly explain reasons for his change of version and hand to another admin. 4.236.15.81 16:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Your editing
You're reverting once more against multiple editors. Please stop it. YIf we'd wanted the current wording of V, NOR, and RS, there would have been no need for a merge, would there? Your edits around these pages are almost always unhelpful. I wish you would stop it, and try to be constructive for once. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Enough, please
You're being disruptive. I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. ATT was meant to be a summary of V and NOR, but you won't allow us to summarize or improve the writing. No, we have to have the same old bad writing we had before. Anyway, I don't know why you're bothering, because you and your friends manage to scupper it anyway, so it's a moot point. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, there is no committee deciding at present because we're waiting for Jimbo. If one develops, it will decide how to proceed. Meanwhile, your reverting constantly to something that's in one of the other policies is a complete waste of your time and mine. But this is what you do a lot, and writing isn't your strong point, so it's particularly frustrating when you do it over the writing. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Portal:RuneScape/Did you know
You are doing it way to fast. You should wait for at least a month prior deleting things. Also a new system is going on, please use it. GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms 16:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * yep, i have rechecked Citing_sources, "Material challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source." Bold and clear. You have to have a good reason first before asking for resource to be cited. I can see many things you have requested for source are easily reproduce/prove by simply getting on the subject matter(in this case, login to the game). GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms  17:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * also, i hope you really understand what the citing policy is about. You seem to be adding the tag with no directions. It's main purpose is to counter original research, not to have resource at every line of statement. Wiki materials is "verifiable" doesn't necessary mean it need to have a "verifiable source cited", wikipedia is not really an address book. GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms  00:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you know, portals and subpage guidelines are slightly different with articles? Not to make an personal attack, but if you really hate what's in portals, you should not visit them at all! Getting a portal to be featured isn't getting all "did you know" to have reference either. I really don't understand your intentions of deleting everything in the runescape "did you know". Please stop it. GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms 14:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please learn about portal first
Please have a read at these articles, if you dont have already.
 * Portal
 * -should promote content
 * Portal/Guidelines
 * Did you know? - Interesting trivia related to the topic
 * Featured_portal_criteria

Then, have a look at these portals and see how the DID YOU KNOW? works. Featured_portals Thanks GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms  03:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

New problem on Hell page
I attempted to edit the page and write a discussion entry to discuss it on Richard Hell. The discussion entry is only visible if I click on history; your entry is the last one that shows on the page. The change to the article page is similarly not working and the article is "cut off" except on history. Help?209.244.43.230 04:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)