User talk:PBS/Archive 9

Berthier: Prince of Wagram
Hi. Actually if you look at the link you provided http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/napoleon.htm#victory (and which I already knew) you find under victory title for Berthier:

Wagram for maréchal Berthier (1809, ext. 1918) Arms: Per pale: 1, Or a dexter arm proper, vested azure semy of bees or and lined of the last, holding a sword sable and on the arm a shield purpure, thereon the letter W within an orle and the motto COMMILITONI VICTOR CAESAR, all or, and a chief of duke of the Empire (Berthier); 2, Gules a on pale or three chevrons sable, and a chief of prince of the Empire (Neufchâtel).

Thus Berthier was a double prince. He had the sovereign title for Neufchâtel, awarded to him in 1806 and a victory title for the battle of Wagram, awarded in 1809. -- fdewaele, 7 December 2007, 8:56

Talk:Bosniaks
Sorry for me saying it, but aren't you beating a dead horse? --Ronz (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Bosnian Genocide
Hi, are we getting anywhere with the Mediation on the Bosnian Genocide article. It is senseless to be engaged in a tit for tat edit war with The DoB and Grandyx2 but at the same time it seems a bad option to just give up to exhaustion and stupidity and let them turn the article into a POV piece. Any other options for conflict resolution?Osli73 (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please Osli73, it is time for you to behave. Remain civil when accusing other users. It is an example of personal attack. I don't mind you asking Phillip for help, alhough it is not the Wikipedia way. Users participating in one edit war shouldn't cooperate in another. It is bad for user's reputation, and bad for Wikipedia. Maybe next time you should first think before starting some redundant propaganda based articles. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Evacuation of East Prussia
So, would the article be ready for A-class review in your opinion or you have something else to change before we do this?? Best, --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of massacres
I've replied. Cbdorsett (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration
Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. CO GDEN  23:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Explanation
Thank you for better explaining your opposition and concerns. Your response makes perfect sense. I have written explanations for the text of the draft. Please review them and let me know if you have any further questions. I would also appreciate any constructive feedback (positive or negative) you might have. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Bosnian genocide
Hello Philip, thanks for your note on my talk page. After the edit, I immediately left a note for User:Osli73 explaining that it was a mistake, and letting him know that due to the history of a content dispute, and what seemed to me, to be two distinct versions of the article, I would leave it to him to discuss on the talk page, and to revert me if that was appropriate. You can see the comment I left him here. As I am unfamiliar with the content, or the content dispute, I did not feel it appropriate for me to make any decision, thus I used the edit summary to explain what happened, and anyone who is more familiar with it should feel free to revert me. Ariel ♥  Gold  03:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR
The secondary sources replacement has undergone some revisions based on feedback. I would appreciate it if you would look over it again and let us know if you still agree with it. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Attention please Philip
Please note that User:Mmx1 has twice reverted a massacre I added, complete with reference. I trust you will block him if he engages in any further edit warring. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

List of massacres
Hi. I came across the old list of massacres page and found it very interesting and helpful. I noticed it has been changed a great deal and that you are trying to make it so every massacre has a source. I would like to help out on this page but I would like to know more about what are the guidlines and disputes you have already had with it. I noticed for instance that none of the classical massacres(such as the Roman Vespers), appear anymore. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfrantzman (talk • contribs) 15:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have liked to have helped with list of massacres but because of all the fueding that took place over that list most of it was deleted and then it was locked to editing, which means the page lost the whole point of its having existed in the first place, i.e. to provide a list of massacres. Because such high standards were also set to include massacres(because people had been adding POV massacres) it is no longer a list of massacres. The old list was far superior even if it was POV. That, after all, is the whole point of calling something a massacre, it is not neutral. So while I respect the long hours and hard work you have put in to trying to tame and control the list it seems that it will now never include many well known massacres and certainly will not contain many obscure ones, which the old list actually did. That is a tremendous loss of knowledge because it is handy to have a list of massacres like the old one which included a great variety and number of massacres.Seth J. Frantzman (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There are a number of ways around this problem but some editors continue to insist that different standards for inclusion is the way to stop "unpalatable" massacres appearing on the list. This simply can't and won't work. If you think the old list was better then a big aid to restoring it would be a brutally honest title; such as "List of killings commonly called massacres by the Western/US/Anglophone media". But the defenders of the indefensible don't want that either - they want to produce a heavily slanted list and then pretend that it really represents the major verifiable massacres in historical and modern times. And worse; I fear some of them don't really understand the implications of different criteria of verifiability for different alleged massacres, ie, that it = POV. Sarah777 (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:Tag
Hmm, that's strange, when I tagged it, it said that the article was something huge, like 191KB. Either someone must have adjusted the size after I tagged it, or my browser must be screwy. Anyways, happy editing! Icestorm815 (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for explaining that to me! Icestorm815 (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

follow up question on massacres
Just so I understand. Are you intending to only include incidents that are known as a "massacre" in a third party text? This would include well known massacres such as the Sand Creek Massacre and I assume incidents such as the Sicilian Vespers which is known as a massacre(www.britannica.com/eb/article-9067619/Sicilian-Vespers). Can we also include on the list massacres that appear elsewhere in Wikipedia with the word 'Massacre' in the headline, such as the Sharpeville massacre?Seth J. Frantzman (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Franz Josef Strauß
Might I ask you to take a look at the new discussion going on at Franz Josef Strauß? Yes, it is an ancient topic (the use of ß on en-wiki), but this is one of the most prominent articles in which this issue is of significance. Given your experience, your input would be very much appreciated. Unschool (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

POV Edits
"List of massacres" - two of your recent edits were If you cannot contain your POV I suggest you hand over the "mentoring" of this article to someone else. (Sarah777 (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
 * in the case of the Irish rebellion of 1641 based on a very mistaken premise
 * in the case of the Fallajuh massacre no justification given

List of massacres and the Irish Rebellion of 1641
Philip, I see that you continue to edit this article as an Administrator. In which case please see this example of WP:Edit warring by User:Jack.Hartford. I have left this message on his page but received no response:


 * Please remove your reinsertion of the massacre "name" Irish Rebellion of 1641 which you restored without any discussion or explanation. Please beware that what you did is WP:Edit warring. - Sarah777 (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

As you are keeping this article in order could you please revert his edit - I note you have already edited this very "massacre".

Thanks - Sarah777 (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Philip, I note you have not responded, even though you seem to be the (self) appointed mentor of this article. But you have found time to make other POV edits that you know I cannot revert. Yet. (Sarah777 (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

POV accusations
I'll thank you to keep your POV accusations to yourself. Just because you don't like facts is no reason to start throwing POV accusations around. Hughsheehy (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of your chosen article
Quit playing these silly games. You know full well that the the user, Heclot, is not editing in "good faith". The user keeps inserting spurious White Supremacist sources associated with National Vanguard, and making vast, sweeping, unsourced political generalizations. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, you ought to use your time more wisely and attempt to arrest this kind of article vandalism - instead of quoting irrelevant Wikipedia guidelines at me, personally, as a part of your ongoing attempts, laughable as they are, to get me blocked. Merry Xmas. Ledenierhomme (talk) 11:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Christmas Philip
I guess this might be akin to the England v Germany football match Christmas 1914, but something tells me that behind all that American Patriotism is a good guy! (Or "sound man" as we'd say over here).

And the caption reads (least you wonder) Best Good Wishes for Christmas and the New Year --- Sarah777 (talk)

Polish names
I've seen you post with regards to names in different languages. Is an admin's preference and a vote on a different name, plus the similar name of a present day city versus an older duchy binding for matters like Talk:Duchy of Oświęcim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles (talk • contribs) 05:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hundred Days
Hi Phillip,

I've got the citation on this with Chesney, Charles Waterloo Lectures p.189 and I am putting that back in, sorry I missed the fact insert. Tirronan (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

D'Erlon’s I Corps wandered between both battles contributing to neither Quatre Bras nor to Ligny. Napoleon wrote to Ney warning him that allowing D'Erlon to wander so far away had crippled his attacks on Quatre Bras and made no move to recall D'Erlon when he could have easily done so. The tone of his orders leave it that he believed he had things well in hand at Ligny without assistance (as in fact he did).

Edit warring on List of massacres
Philip, Jack.Hartford deleted material I placed in the article to assist you in your work without any explanation. This is in clear contravention of the instructions on the "revert" page. Please alert him to the consequences of continued WP:Edit warring. I am getting rather tired of nearly ever single addition to this article that I make being instantly reverted without any explanation. I thought your your job was to stop that happening? (Sarah777 (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC))
 * This IP is vandalising the List of Massacres. Please block. Ta (Sarah777 (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC))

It's only a name
Given your unhealthy intereste in codenames, I thought these sites might float your boat: &. Seems others share the interest! I'll add to the wiki lists as I get time. Happy New Year. Folks at 137 (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Yo! Bosnian Genocide?! Did I request mediation? No recollection of same! Sarah777 (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ooops - wrong page; thats the trouble with tabbed browsing Sarah777 (talk)

This is a promise...
you will suffer, i know where you live —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.206.189 (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Joyce Lebra as Unreliable source???
Hello Phillip, I notice you tagged the Lebra source as unreliable in the U Go page. Assuming that this was because the reference was not provided, I have now added it and removed the template. Please let me know if this was for any ohter reasons, since I will point out that Joyce Lebra is recognised as an expert on the war in southeast Asia. Happy New Year and regardsrueben_lys (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured Picture Candidate
Image:Waterloo Campaign Map.svg is being reviewed for possible promotion to Featured Picture status. Since you seem to be active on articles related to the image, I would like your input specifically on the image's historical accuracy. You can leave any comments at Featured picture candidates/Waterloo Campaign Map. Thanks! -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 08:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Crufty Lists
Thanks for the info. I can't abide those crufty lists, I really can't! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

French invasion of Russia
I've finished the Battle of Borodino my next target is the French invasion of Russia. I can use your help on that one Phillip. Tirronan (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The same guys were on Battle of Borodino and that went pretty well. Come on over the it will be fine. Tirronan (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Dresden
Thanks for your note about Dresden. I would very much like to help fix that up at some point. I'm pretty sure it could become a featured article without a huge amount of effort, and it really ought to be, given the importance of it. I think you've done a great job staving off the extremes of POV on both sides. The result of doing that is often that editors are forced to compromise on the wording, which can lead to a stitled flow, which I feel is what has happened in this case. Having said that, I know what it feels like to have worked on an article solidly for years, and other people butting in aren't welcome. However, I hope you'll let me help improve the article, so long as it's done carefully. I'm going to buy the Frederick Taylor book, and once I've read that, I should be in a better position. If there's anything else that you regard as required reading, please let me know. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 04:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin role
Hi Phillip. I've seen you protected the Bosnian Genocide article and blocked Grandy Grandy, but you didn't block Osli which is very strange and unfair as you two share the same POV regarding Bosnian Genocide article. As you can notice, Osli also broke 3RR in Bosnian Genocide, (reverted 4 times, he wasn't just singned-in the first time), so I am going to discuss it with other admins about your biased approach. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Military occupation
Hi Philip. If its ok with you, I'd like to put in a disambig page because soldier is not a military occupation in the general sense of the word, nor does it cover such obvious occupations as sailor and airman.--mrg3105mrg3105 22:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR
I think you've violated 3RR at Bombing of Dresden. The policy says that only three reverts (in whole or in part) are allowed in 24 hours, and they need not involve the same material. You might want to take the opportunity to revert yourself. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 14:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Which edit do you think puts me over the 3RR. I will of course revert it. --PBS (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The last one you did. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 14:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, you were already over it. You reverted five times in two and a half hours:
 * 1st revert 11:00 Jan 7
 * 2nd revert 13:13 Jan 7
 * 3rd revert 14:09 Jan 7 <-- Not the Background
 * 4th revert 14:16 Jan 7
 * 5th revert 14:36 Jan 7

I don't intend to report this, but I'm assuming it will stop. Many thanks, SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 14:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I can revert that one (because it has already been reverted). Also I am not sure that you are right. However to show good faith I will not edit the Bombing of Dresden article or the talk page for 24 four hours. --PBS (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You added "not the background" to the above as though that matters. Please read WP:3RR. Any reverting at all counts toward 3RR. It needn't be the same material each time, and it needn't be a full revert. Partial reverts count too. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 15:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Maccacres
Hi, I just thought you would be interested in this largely unknown topic, please look at Massacres of Poles in Volhynia. Also, this one Ochota massacre. Greets Tymek (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian Genocide informal mediation case
Hi PBS, I've accepted the Bosnian Genocide informal mediation case, and the discussion is going to be on the article talk page.--Addhoc (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Scharnhorst & Gneisenau
The battleship/ battlecruiser debate has reopened. You may want to join in, again. Folks at 137 (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have opened an RfC on whether to refer to these ships as battleships or battlecruisers. Since you have participated in this debate previously, please have a look, read the debate, and make your views known: Talk:Scharnhorst_class_battlecruiser Regards, The Land (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Battle of La Suffel
Hmm, I may innocently have stepped onto some pretty convoluted terrain. A French wiki page&mdash;of course, now I'm blanking&mdash;gave the commander as the Kronprinz of Württemberg, from which I made an obvious deduction. Schwarzenberg, of course, was in overall command on the Rhine. That's all I can say. Albrecht (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And where in the BBC article you saw the term of "Bosnian Mujahideen"?

 * Articles for deletion/Bosnian Mujahideen

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/840241.stm - strange, I see only "the Mujahideen".

But hey, maybe you see the things I can't see. --HanzoHattori (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, look at book and website searches I did. The term is NOT commonly used at all. Almost no one uses it. The claim that is used "often" is false. --HanzoHattori (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Informal mediation
Your comments were not deleted from Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-12-04 Bosnian Mujahideen. They were simply archived with the rest of the comments and notes previously made. I hope that helps clear up any confusion. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Basically, everyone knows the position of everyone else at this point. The material is in a linked archive for reference. It just allows a clean slate for discussion pending the outcome of the AfD. If you have any other questions, please ask. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

hello, I have an International law question related to mediation and mobilization. I am involved in the "origins of world war one" discussion page. I referenced a book written in 1914 by the former Assistant U.S. Attorney General James M Beck called "Evidence in the Case" The book can be downloaded for free at archive.org. The discussion is regarding Russian mobilization in 1914 that was promptly followed by a German declaration of war. In the book, Mr. Beck claimed that "the response to mobization is mobilization. It is not to declare war". He further states that "such act of mobilization was the right of any sovereign state, and as long as the Russian armies did not cross the German or Austrian borders or take any aggressive action, no other nation had any just right to complain, each having the same right to make similar preparations." The historians at the "origins of world war one" Wikepedia page have pretty much dismissed my legal questions as completely "irrelevant". This Wikepedia page seems like a good place to find to discuss this topic or atleast to give me some direction on how to rebut their arguments.EdwardLovette (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

List of massacres
Not sure what you are at here Philip as virtually all the edit warring was by registered and established users (some very long established and obviously accustomed to having their way here). And as you can see the vandalism re-started immediately; mass deletion of all the Fallujah massacre references. Which, of course, I have now restored. Sarah777 (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As you can see Sarah's a little perplexed by this. I would appreciate you at least having consulted with me before lowering the protection level. You're an involved party in this content dispute; I'm not. I am still assuming good faith but not everyone might have seen it that way. I can see what you are trying to accomplish but, if edit warring starts up again, I will restore full protection.

It really seems to me more and more like we're going to have to have an article RFC. Daniel Case (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian genocide
Actually, is the volunteer on Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-08 Bosnian Genocide. Vassyana (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

article structure consistency
Would like your input on the article structure I have developed for the series of articles dealing with Eastern Front operations. I am particularly concerned with the introduction section vs the opening paragraph. The opening paragraph is supposed to be a brief summary of the entire article, but I have found way too much information inserted in them in other articles, duplicating information in 'campaign boxes' and repeated in the introductions that follow Contents.

Below is a suggested standard structure for article taxonomy based more on the military terminology, and incorporating a way of describing an event that follows a more military event structure.

+Contents (here)
 * ‘’’Introductory briefing’’’ (unnamed) – a short, one paragraph of no more then seven average length sentences, description of the article addressing the question when, where, who, why, larger context, significance, and outcome.) Using WikiProject Military history/Essays/Describing conflicts would be helpful here.
 * Role in the conflict – describes role of the event in the larger conflict. A war also has a context in a larger conflict since it usually evolves from non-armed forms of conflict such as social, cultural, political and economic conflicts.


 * Campaign situation – this describes the event in terms of a war's theatre campaign.
 * Strategic situation (as required) – this describes the event in terms of the campaign where an operation is the event
 * Operation situation (as required) – this describes the event in terms of the operation where a battle is the event
 * Battle situation (as required) – this describes the event in terms of the battle where an event describes a part of a tactical battle


 * Decision making – after assessment of the situation comes the decision-making process that seeks to change the existing situation through securing of initiative by offensive action.


 * Goal of the operation – to change the situation one needs a situational change goal
 * Objective of the battle – at the tactical level the goal is called an objective
 * Side A intelligence – the first step is to gather understanding by the attacked (A) of the defender’s (D) capacity to resist
 * Side D intelligence – usually anyone suspicious of an attack will also gather intelligence on the likelihood of an impending attack


 * Planning – after the intelligence is gathered, planning starts


 * Side A – description of planning should begin with a) organisational description, b) logistic arrangements, c) personnel availability and abilities, and d) technology to be used.
 * Forces involved – organisation of forces and their structural description (in modern times described as tables of equipment of organisation and equipment) need to be given
 * Side D
 * Forces involved


 * Description of the Campaign/Strategic operation/operation/battle – this is the core part of the article. All military events have phased sequence that can be divided into:


 * Initial attack – describes initial execution of the plan
 * Progress of the offensive – describes success or failure of the plan
 * Decisive action – describes the instance when the plan has the greatest chance of success or failure, or the attempt to correct the divergence from the plan
 * Final commitment – any attempts to secure success or prevent failure of the plan
 * Outcomes – comparison of end result with the planned result of the event plan


 * Consequences – the impact of the outcomes on events that follow, but which are not part of the above-described plan


 * Immediate effects – immediate effects that include changes in a) organisational description, b) logistic arrangements, c) personnel availability and abilities, and d) technology to be used.
 * Effects on future planning – describe effects on the planning in the larger scope of events


 * Myths – often popular rendition or beliefs about the event that are either partly or completely false, or presented for the purpose of propaganda
 * Memorials – a means of post event commemoration of the event
 * Popular culture – depiction of the event in popular culture and media
 * References – page reference in an authoritative source used to research the article content
 * Footnotes – explanatory notes for points made in the article
 * Bibliography – sources used for the compilation of research on the article
 * See also – other Wikipedia articles related to the event
 * Online resources – other online sites that relate to the event or its larger context
 * Further reading – other sources not used for the research of the article but recommended to the reader

The purpose of the article structure suggested above is not to straight-jacket the authors and editors, but to enhance consistency of presentation throughout the project’s assortment of articles to the reader, and to enable the future editors to be more focused in the editing process by providing more focused sections in the article structure. Thank you--mrg3105mrg3105 00:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My talk page comments
Fair enough, but I dont appreciate people like Rama goading me like that. Happy Sapper (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of No Quarter
An editor has nominated No Quarter, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

For your consideration
Hi Phillip,

We have been along this for a certain time now. I wonder if we can agree in using this document as a basis for a common working on the subject. This is an authoritative source who basically shares my point of view about taxonomy of political violence and also about the need of having a definition of terrorism. Please take an open minded look at it and tell me what you think.

I think we share many concepts about war and we have common interest in military history that we can use to build a profitable relantionship that brakes the current deadlock in the subject of terrorism definition in wikipedia.

--Igor21 (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, if you agree in the need of a working definition then we have somewhere to start. To tackle each issue one by one, I would like to speak about IRA firts. IMO, whatever they can say, they have used terrorism. If we take all the IRA actions, we will find three groups. Firstly some guerrilla actions in which british units able to defend themselvers are ambushed. Then another group which is when they kill or torture civilians of their own side to force them to accept IRA as their governement. And finally actions against British individuals o interests.


 * IMO, the second and third groups are terrorism and not any definition that allows this two groups to be considered otherwise can be acceptable. The bombings in Hide Park are terrorism. My way to separate the first group from the other two (i.e. guerrilla and terrorism) is with the phrase "out of a context of war". This also avoids the inclusion of Dresde, etc...


 * Finally and coming back to IRA, the discussion about if they can be called a terrorist group or not, is secondary to me. What is important is that we build a definition that allows to say "IRA have used terrorist tactics amongst others (guerrilla, gansterism, racket, etc..) to push their political goals".--Igor21 (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

All the books about terrorism include references to IRA. The fact that American governement has had an ambiguous attitude to this organization does no add or remove anything to the fact that the definition must be written in a way that includes the Hide Park bombings and Canary Wharf. There is a political reasons for USA not having had a more strong stance against IRA that are that many Irish in the states have helped IRA. These political reasons do not affect wikipedia. OTOH "military necessity" is a full diferent issue that has nothing to do with terrorism so as dificult as it can be a definition for this concept, it must be dicussed separately.--Igor21 (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I also told you that "All the books about terrorism include references to IRA". So the message of my post was that the USA governement is nobody to say who is terrorist or who is not since their criteria are not objective. Hoffman, Schmidt and the people who work academically in the subject are the ones to be used as sources and for them IRA always have been a group that used terrorism. And for this people there is no doubt that terrorism exist and can (and must) be defined.--Igor21 (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Lorraine Campaign
I guess I'm a little confused. The Lorraine Campaign refers to U.S. Third Army operations in Lorraine; the Colmar Pocket was part of Allied 6th Army Group operations in Alsace. Not sure why Lorraine Campaign should redirect to Colmar Pocket? Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

For the moment, I've reverted the Lorraine Campaign stub. It now refers to Lorraine vice NE France. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice tweak to Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre
I like what you did to external links and further reading. As you may have gathered, I began to get the feeling, not exclusive to this article, that people were putting in unexplained internal links. Had the key content from the links been put into the main article, they might well have failed verifiability, reputable source, POV, etc. For example, I found two copies of a link to the Federation of American Scientists webpage on white phosphorus, with the second link rather contradicting the article about the chemical impact of phosphorus burns.

Perhaps I should note that I've seen phosphorus burns, as the result of a small laboratory explosion, and assisted the ER physician in safely handling the WP fragments he was pulling out of the wound. I also have a sufficient interest and knowledge in chemical toxicology to question some of the chemical assertions. There are other things that don't lend themselves to references, but I've looked, in detail, at some of the more graphic photographs, and had physician friends look at them as well. Our impression was there were simpler explanations than WP or some secret weapon. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice tweak indeed; but I see some selective quoting going on. Monbiot claimed the assault was a massacre regardless of the phosphorus; effectively what he was saying was that the Italians were missing the big picture by hyping the phosphorus. Sarah777 (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

List of massacres
Hello Philip. I just wanted to warn you that you are perilously close to a 3RR violation over the last 24hrs. I appreciate that some of the reverts have been to remove blatantly unsourced additions (and at least one was reverting what appears to be someone logging out to make an revert), but on an article such in the current atmosphere, its really not a good idea to get this close.

I understand what you are trying to do here, keep material well sourced, but everyone has got to try and and avoid reversions as much as possible if we are going to stabilize this article. Rockpock e  t  18:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ordinance of no quarter
Yes, I'll get back to to you with a reference this week, but probably not until friday as I'm pretty busy right now.

Regards, Jdorney (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL
Hi Philip. I appreciate your input at the discussion page but, per my warning of 5 February about civility, you must be more careful in your choice of language. I refer to this edit, and specifically your use of the word "muppet". Please be more careful; it is especially important in an area like this where there has been tension that we all remain civil. If you repeat this, I will have to block you. Please do not. Thanks. --John (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ordinance of no quarter to the Irish
Phillip, Here are the ref's you were looking for, from John Kenyon, Jane Ohlmeyer, The Civil Wars, pp 87-88 After the ceasefire of 1643,


 * 'Charles made us of these resources for his own war effort. Ormonde shipped considerable numbers of largely Protestant troops to Wales. In addition Antrim asked the [Confederate] Supreme Council to provide Charles with a furthr 10,000 men for England, "to resist the Scotch invasion" and at least 2,000 armed men who were to join the Scottish royalists under the marquis of Montrose, as well as with arms for Prince Rupert's forces in England. The council agreed to raise troops for Scotalnd...While the confederates promised to provide the arms and munitions requested for Prince Rupert, they remained reluctant to ship ten Catholic regiments to England at a time when troops were desperately needed at home and refused to commit themselves until they had heard how negotiations between their commissioners and the King (over the redress of their religious, tenurial and political grievances) were progressing at Oxford...Charles refused to make any significant concessions to any of their demands, especially those concerning religion and the constitutional position of the Irish Parliament and the delegation returne to Kilkenny. Hardly surprisingly, further confederate aid for the royalist war effort did not materialise.'

Padraig Lenihan, Confederate Catholics at War, p.76


 * 'In November 1643, Ormonde sent about 2,000 men to Bristol from Munster and five regiments from Dublin to Chester. The main body of "Irish" (the troops from Leinster were in fact mostly Welsh and Cheshire men...) were grouped in five regiments and used to clear the parliamentarians from north Wales and Nantwich... Ormonde may subsequently have sent two infrantry regiments and four cavalry troops, or at most about 2,000 men.'


 * p.78; 'Antrim... asked the Supreme Council to back his proposed expeditionary force of 2,000 men for Scotland and another 10,000 for England. The councilmen agreed to Antrim's Scottish expedition but refused to commit themselves to supplying 10,000 men until they saw how negotiations between their commissioners and the king were proceeding at Oxford'.


 * p.85 The Earl of Glamorgan signed a secret treaty with the confederates on the King's behalf in 1645 under which a confederate force would be sent to Chester.


 * 'On 22 January 1646, the King publicly repudiated the treaty. Two months were to elapse before this news reached the Supreme Council and in the meantime preparations went ahead, to the extent that 6,000 troops were actually assembled in readiness to embark for Chester in March 1646. Then, news arrived almost simultaneously of the fall of Chester and the King's repudiation of the treaty. Even without hte benefit of hindsight, the expeditionary strategy was dead'.

So there were two periods when the confederates promised to send troops to England, but they never actually got there. What did reach Charles were Ormonde's royalist units whom the ceasefire allowed to be sent back to England. regards, Jdorney (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

THe Ordinance article seems ok. I think that genuine differences regarding factual content can easily be resolved by editors of goodwill. With people who are trying to push their own pov with no regard for the facts, well that's a different story. I think we've both encountered a few of those by now here on wp.

Regards Jdorney (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Phillip, done, JD Jdorney (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fucking Amal/Show Me Love
Please see the talk page - I responded after the closed portion. :) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe 24 hours have passed since I agreed to the deal at 17:45, 19 February 2008 (the message to Pmanderson was posted at 17:18, 19 February 2008) - WhisperToMe (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Football (word) dispute
I think you misunderstood what I meant by "It's not assumed to everyone what the most popular code is everywhere." What I mean is it shouldn't be assumed that people know what the most popular code in the United States is or what the most popular code is in any other country. What I mean is, having the sentence "Where English is a first language, the word football generally means the most popular form of football in that region." does not convey the specific information of what the most popular code of football in any specific region is.

So when the previous sentence says people in the United States call association football soccer, it's not assumed why this is, or what the most popular code of football in the U.S. is. I was simply explaining that. I was not at all trying to suggest American football is the most popular code in the world, that is obviously association football. A couple sentences down it says "This is because many countries, with relatively small populations of native English speakers, nevertheless have English as an official or main language, and favour British English usage, thus using football to mean association football." This makes it clear what the word football means in most of the world. I was simply explaining what the word football means in the United States.

I wasn't trying to imply the popularity of one code over another at all. If you misunderstood me and thought I was saying that then I apologize because I wasn't. I'm simply pointing out what the most popular code of football in the United States is, just as it points out a couple sentences later what the most popular code of football in most of the FIFA member countries is.

Why is this such a big deal? LonelyMarble (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus
I note Philip in your 'edit summary' you claim that 60% of the vote = "consensus". Interesting, because in normal non-Wiki usage reference is made to, for example a "two-thirds" majority. Nobody claims that that equals "consensus". Yet it appears that you reckon that 60% is consensus. Clearly an invented-for-Wiki definition. But isn't such WP:synthesis against the Wiki-law? Can you supply a non-Wiki reference that states (in exactly those words, natch) that 60% = consensus? Sarah777 (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and btw - logic check. If there is a "Wiki-rule" (and isn't there for everything) that defines 60% as "consensus" then these things are actually decided by a vote - contrary to all the bull you and numerous Admins have uttered in the past. Sarah777 (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As noted the move is highly contentious and against consensus, I've left a message on the talkpage of the article Talk:Association football in the Republic of Ireland because of this. I tried to move the page myself but for some reason couldn't I'd like to sugget you move the article it back to where it was originally due to lack of consesus for the move. - Talk of the Toon (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:PRACTICAL "So in summary, Wikipedia decision making is not based on formal vote counting ("Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy"). This means that polling alone is not considered a means of decision-making, and it is certainly not a binding vote, and you do not need to abide by polls per se. Polling is generally discouraged, except in specialized processes such as AFD.". WP:RM along with WP:AfD and WP:RfA are three wikipedia processes where surveys are used. In many cases the decision about the name is simply down to policies and guidelines, in which case policy wins. But in cases such as Association football in the Republic of Ireland no one bought to the move debate a clear statement in a policy or guideline that could be used to decide the issue.

Consensus on Wikipeida does not mean consensus as it does in a Cabinet decision. If you look through both the talk pages on WP:CONSENSUS and WP:RM you will see that I have been involved in loooong discussions on this issue. It is generally held that for more critical decisions e.g. whether an editor becomes an Admin or not the numbers of opinions expressed in favour of an editor becoming an admin should be around 80%, but for a page move (something unless there is an impediment any registered user can do) the threshold is much lower around 60% (it works really well for small numbers). I for one am in favour of putting these numbers back onto the guideline pages but it seems (some?most?) other admins involved in theses are not and instead rely on the wording that gives far more discretion to the admin closing the survey. Hence the wording "a handful of RM regulars who are familiar with naming conventions, nonbinding precedents, " and "In general there is a consensus that there is no minimum participation. If there is no objection to a move after X days (however long the move process is), move it. This isn't AFD - there's a presumption of moving, since in most moves, there is no need for WP:RM." --PBS (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Latin and English in alphabets and scripts
Hi Philip

User:Mrg3105 has had the same reaction as you wrt Latin and English alphabets and scripts. You might find it interesting to read User_talk:Mrg3105 and reconsider the revert of my edit in Naming_conventions_(use_English). Jasy jatere (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Same reaction to what? I started the discussion by trying to differentiate Latin and English. I firmly believe that Latin and English alphabets are not the same and the NC use English should be changed to the English alphabet. This is particularly true because some editors see Latin, but read "Latin-based"--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 11:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

List of massacres, part 92
Hi again Philip. I noticed your comment here where you state that "a number of editors" have dissented from the consensus that the article should only contain actual massacres. As I see it, that number was one (which is, albeit, a number). Even if you are now adding yourself to that opinion (something I have seen no previous evidence of), I know you understand how consensus works here. I am very happy with the work I did on calming down the dispute; if you are not, it would be helpful if you could raise your unhappiness with me in the first instance rather than making what seems to me a sniping comment at the centralised discussion. Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As someone who did not participate in the original discussions I have to say that I am appalled by the way this article (list) was handled. Every Wikipedia article needs to have a definition as a means of introduction. Without the definition the article can not really be said to be deletable. Someone is going to come to Wikipedia looking for a definition of "massacre" and examples there of, and find an empty space! This is expressly against the very purpose for which Wikipedia was created!--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 22:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * PS. I am primarily interested in this list where it concerns the Eastern Front (WW2). If deleted I would have to recreate it in a more reasonable form, so I would rather it was moved to new title and expanded.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 00:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of massacres
An editor has nominated List of massacres, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Another daft decision
PSB, I see you moved "football" in Ireland to some weird name rather than to a disamb page as was the clear consensus on the matter. Have you ever made a sensible call as an Admin? Please reverse this asinine decision. Sarah777 (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

alphabets and scripts (moved from UE talk page)
Hi Philip, the UE talk page gets a bit flooded, so I thought I might address some of your points on your talk page.

Jasy jatere, where did you get your definition of alphabet from? You did not get it from the OED which says "1. a. The set of letters used in writing the Greek language; extended to those used by the Romans; and thence to any set of characters representing the simple sounds used in a language or in speech generally."

"The English alphabet in this sense for instance uses the Latin (or Roman) script, and uses the familiar letters a-z." You are using a circular argument, by arguing that letters invented for use in English are part of the Latin Alphabet, yet the W does not exist in the Classic Latin Alphabet.


 * I argue that the English alphabet makes us of the Latin script. The latin script is broader then the 23 letters of the Latin alphabet. Unfortunately, "Latin alphabet" is polysemous, it can refer to a) the 23 letters used by Cicero et al., or it can refer to b) the much larger set of all letters that are based in form on a) (aka Latin script). The English alphabet uses the Latin script as in b). For reference, you find in Latin alphabet:In modern usage, the term "Latin alphabet" is used for any straightforward derivation of the alphabet first used to write Latin. These variants may discard some letters (like the Rotokas alphabet) or add extra letters (like the Danish and Norwegian alphabet).Jasy jatere (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

So one can just as easily argue that that what you are calling the Latin Alphabet is a construction for use in the computer industry and is an amalgamation of all those distinct alphabets originally derived from the Classic Latin Alphabet.
 * the term "Latin script" surely predates the use of computers. Jasy jatere (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed one can argue that as the basic character set (ASCII) only contains English letters to call it the basic Latin alphabet when it consists of more than just the classical Latin letters needed for write English, shows a form of English language imperialism.
 * ;-). Same comment as above, it refers to Latin alphabet in sense b). Jasy jatere (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Jasy jatere you say "Note that there is no English characters in Unicode." Yet the English alphabet consists of 26 letters and to argue that all the characters in the Unicode are Latin is in my opinion not possible, for example ASCII (Basic unicode character set) consists of the 26 letters of the English alphabet and the rest -- over a hundred -- that are not in any alphabet, yet you are using unicode to define the Latin alphabet!
 * I was refering to the absence of the page English characters in Unicode (red link) to show that no one assumes that "English" has any bearing in defining the unicode code ranges. On the other hand Latin characters in Unicode (blue link) does exist, showing that "Latin" is seen as a concept which matters in character encoding. And yes, "W" is within the Latin range. Jasy jatere (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

OED: 1.a Something written; a piece of writing., 2. a. Handwriting, the characters used in hand-writing (as distinguished from print). b. Typogr. (In full script type.) A kind of type devised to imitate the appearance of handwriting. d. A style of handwriting resembling typography, both in the shape of the characters and in their not being joined together. In full script-writing; cf. print-script s.v. PRINT n. 16a. (Freq. used in the teaching of young children.) 3. A kind of writing, a system of alphabetical or other written characters. There are other but they are more specialised so where did you get your definition from?


 * 3 is the definition I refer to Jasy jatere (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to say that a script in English uses anything but the 26 letters of the English alphabet.


 * Script (sense 1) and Script (sense 2) make use of the characters of the English alphabet, which are in Latin script (sense 3).

If you prefer to have this discussion on the talk page where it originated, that's fine with me. I simply felt that the talk page is a bit overloaded. Jasy jatere (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

AN/I
FYI. Tyrenius (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Associação Académica de Coimbra - O.A.F.
Hello Philip! You recently closed my move request of Associação Académica de Coimbra - O.A.F.. That's all well since no-one seemed to bother contributing. However, I'm not impressed and frankly a bit bemused of your addition of your personal views on the matter. First of all, if you had a view of your own, why didn't you contribute to the actual discussion? Instead you added your thoughts as a seemingly impartial interpretation of the discussion, giving no-one the chance to answer your arguments. Not only that, I think you're wrong on the issue. The common name of AAC-OAF is of course "Académica de Coimbra" with 28300 English hits (""Académica de Coimbra" football" 17400), compared to "Associação Académica de Coimbra - O.A.F" with 381 English hits. Not only is your conclusion of the issue principally wrong, it's also factually wrong so I'm going to remove your thoughts from the RM. In the future, please don't add your personal views when closing an RM if you don't hav contributed to the discussion. Best regards, Sebisthlm (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Associação Académica de Coimbra
PBS, you did it all wrong and broke all the rules. What a mess you've made of the AAC's articles. Yodaki (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I have to agree with Yodaki that you came to a strange conclusion of a consensus for a move here. Even if mine and Yodaki's discussion wasn't very intense, we were still debating on how to proceed. i was thinking of amending or possibly withdrawing my requests but waiting with a faint hope that some new blood would join the discussion. I don't know how you got a 1-1 vote as a consensus for a move.

I have now raised some principal questions on how these RMs were closed over at WP:AN/I. I would like to make it perfectly clear that I don't think these moves were closed by any sort of malice from your part, something I also have made clear at WP:ANI. I'm not trying to point my finger at you, but rather raise some policy questions. I just think these moves weren't closed appropriately. It may seem a bit overkill to post these questions at AN/I, but I've tried, but not been able, to find another place. Best regards, Sebisthlm (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Example of what I mean by Wikification of a list article
List of maritime explorers--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 12:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. It is unacceptable to blank hours of work and research on an article, because "you do not like" what is says. Do not vanadalise work with over 45 sources again. - S.Azzopardi (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have a problem with the edits then start a section on the talk to voice your reason. You are violating policies of WP:BLANK by your vandalism of tons of sourced info and hours of work. All I have done is follow WP:BOLD guideline and used many sources in my ongoing works on it. I disuade you from vandalising it again or I will be forced to report you. - S.Azzopardi (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:3RR, if I revert an edit of clear vandalism such as trolls blanking hours of work and sourced information giving no reason or rationale, then it does not count towards a revert. I suggest you and your friend stop vandalising the work and allow me to complete. - S.Azzopardi (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You do realise, South Africa is in Africa right? Your edit makes no sense. - S.Azzopardi (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, you're causing a trail of destruction. In this edit you blank a section which is sourced and then request a source for it! The website of rugby in Namibia: NamibianRugby.com uses language in which the sport is refered to as "rugby". So you just blanked a source, while at the same time asking for one. - S.Azzopardi (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the support! --Tirronan (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well done!
Thanks PBS. The re-naming of this article is an important achievement and while I think the title should be more honest about who called them massacres (Wiki!) this is a victory for WP:NPV. Sarah777 (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Negationism
Will you please stop putting Elst back in? Read his Wikipedia article, please. The man's a non-notable fringe author who's been lathered all over WP by a bunch of SPAs, many of whom are now banned. Relata refero (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI
I did some edits to Jawed Ahmad earlier today.

I noticed something you might find noteworthy. Bagram captives don't get CSRTs. They get Enemy Combatant Review Boards. When DoD spokesmen kept saying the CSRT was just one step in a series of reviews, and that the CSRTs were merely confirming the determination of earlier procedures that determined that the captives were "enemy combatants".

There now seem to be a silent change. Jawed Ahmad's ECRB didn't determine he was an "enemy combatant". It determined that he was an "unlawful enemy combatant". Five new captives have been sent to Guantanamo since the 14 high-profile ones transferred from CIA custody on September 6th, 2006. The 14 had their CSRTs a year or so ago. But the newest five haven't.

I predict that their CSRTs will determine they were "unlawful enemy combatants" in the first place.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Associação Académica de Coimbra
The reason for the move of Coimbra Academic Association - football section to Associação Académica de Coimbra (amateur football) was given many times but I can repeat it here for you again. It doesn't make sense to have a designation for one AAC's sports department/section in English when all the other sports departments are known for its Portuguese name: this include Associação Académica de Coimbra - O.A.F., Associação Académica de Coimbra (basketball) and Associação Académica de Coimbra (volleyball). All these teams are connected and belong to the same institution so the designation must be the same. Besides that you can read the articles of Real Madrid, Deportivo de La Coruña or Mladost sports teams where you can further understand the point of view I have tried to explain and you refuse to even read. And read also the complaints other users have made about your nearly vandalizing actions in several articles. We know that today's Wikipedia is a place without rules and edited by all kinds of users and administrators. It is worthless to discuss with vandals or blind fanatics, however, did you ever stop and think you may be wrong? Yodaki (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the others back to the names given to them in the requested move. I suggest that we continue the discussion on Coimbra Academic Association --PBS (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is also being discussed here. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 20:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Massacre
Hi. Thanks for the pointer to the Martens Clause, which I've added to the page. (Seems appropriate when using a legal turn of phrase within a general encyclopedia.) Meanwhile, I just thought that using massacre without a pipe and "Massacre may refer to: List of events named massacres." (List of events identified as massacres?) didn't read too well as English. Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No quarter
I reached "no quarter" from the entry on Krav Maga. Not being a native speaker, I figure that other non-native speakers of English may be unsure about the meaning of "victor".

Thank you for the tip on linking to Wiktionary words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandv (talk • contribs) 23:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:British Divisions in World War II
Please come--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 09:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Philip,

Firstly the discussion is supposed to be about divisions, but is being muddled by regimental system by people not willing to do the research or listen.

Secondly the statement "why at independence the Indian and Pakistani armies would have wished their inherited regiments to keep their regimental histories" is true, but wishes do not always come true.

After 1947 they did not share UK OOB. Simple as that.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 02:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Irish Rebellion of 1641
Philip, your "restoration of version before edit war" is disgraceful. We have clear policies on the use of neutral terms over words like "massacre". You are restoring 24 carat POV and I hereby ask you to stop it. Politely. Sarah777 (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry Philip, the fact that you have put something on a different article page does not justify reinstating POV again. I am going to ignore your protection as the work of a biased Admin currently involved in edit-warring on the article. Do not be tempted to abuse your blocking tools. Sarah777 (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Philip
This does not answer my point. Please, I have invited you to respond three times by edit summaries. This, in your talkpage, is the fourth time. Care to please respond? NikoSilver 15:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

 * I have suggested a compromise that could work in the talk page. Your thoughts would be appreciated.Xenovatis (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is the most promising proposal and a better one has not been presented so far. It covers all your concerns about definitions and synthesis and uses only the two most complete of the academic sources, which is a good thing anyway. There is leeway to discuss the other issues like populations versus communities, the use of systematic etc and we could link to the 1948 definition of the term.Xenovatis (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Refusal to compromise

 * I find your refusal to compromise trboubling and inexplicable given how much we have discussed the issue of the Talk:Pontic Greek Genocide, the various academic sources presented to you and, crucially, my show of good faith in compromising on a number of issues, like the pov-tag, bolding, the lead, sources etc and willingness to discuss and modify my proposals to cover all of your concerns including, but not limited to, the matter of genocide definitions, the matter of WP:SYN, the matter of quotes and citations you find misleading and the matter of altering the lead to reflect only one reference. So far I have been doing all the compromising while the other side has not shown any willingness to change its hardline position by an iota. This is not compliant with WP:PRACTICAL.Xenovatis (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Philip, I will reply to your points in detail in a minute but for now a quick question if you please. Do you consider that the term genocide applies to the Armenian Genocide? You are intelligent enough to realize I am not being wilfull or obtuse here and that there is a good reason I am asking this question. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. I have numbered the points so we can structure this discussion.


 * 2 I thought your argument on definitions of the word genocide on which we spent quite a bit of time and I learned a lot, was to do with the fact that multiple references are used from academics who do not report their definitions of the word. So I suggested that the looser definition employed by the IAGS be used in the lead as this would effectively solve the problem since the genocide implied by the looser is a superset of that implied by the stricter and further the IAGS give a very precise definition of what they mean by the term, essentially the 1948 UN def, which answers your concern that sources are not cited in the passive when a definition is not supplied. I have already indicated that other sources can be cited in the manner you have suggested, e.g. so and so labeled the events thus.


 * 3 The majority of the academic sources, the IAGS, the JGS and several universities call it genocide. I have no trouble accepting that label until reliable sources are presented that claim otherwise. I am quite happy to discuss applying the looser definition of communities to that label and the lead to cover your objections on what definition they are using when they label it genocide and also happy to discuss compromising on the events to be mentioned in the article so as to limit them to only those mentioned by the IAGS (deportations, massacres, death marches).


 * 4 I was surprised and disappointed to see that WP does not have a section on genocide/massacre etc on its guidance list for the use of certain words. This would have solved our current predicament one way or another. However the WP:NPOV Tutorial has a very interesting section which I think we should discuss as it pertains to our issue. I am in full agreement with the following guideline, both in not appeasing and in presenting the other side’s POV fully and fairly. Another similar case that is mentioned in the Let the facts speak for themselves section would be Jerusalem. Many UN member states do not recognize it as the capital of Israel yet the article states it is and qualifies it in the comments section.


 * WP:NPOV_tutorial


 * 5 I have already presented a journal article on the deportations and another on the genocide and the labor battalions as well as a book chapter on some of the massacres. We can discuss any further events as they are presented and if academic sources are brought which describe them and which you consider reliable they can be included. Otherwise I would have to concede that they be left out.


 * 6 In the course of our discussion, spurred on by your good points I have read a bit on WP’s policies and similar cases, paying particular heed to the talk pages. I have read with care Moreschi’s and others’ essays on nationalism and SPA’s and I agree with most of their points particularly wrt fringe and lack of sources and citations. I have also visited the GenPortal where I saw a rather troubling comment by yourself on an alleged genocide that should not be included in the portal. This is the reason I asked that particular question. If you are not convinced by the case for the AG then you will categorically not be convinced by the admittedly less plentiful evidence presented so far on the PGG. Which significantly narrows any scope for compromise on your part. Please understand that this ascribes no bias, and your lack of an ethnic bias in this issue was the reason I invited you in the debate in the first place. However you will have to admit that in discarding the AG case, you elevate your standards for labeling an event a genocide to a point significantly higher than most scholars’ in the field who do label the events as such(there is a relevant citation in the AG article lead).


 * 7 On a personal note I find the subject of genocide per se oppressive and depressing and the wikilawyering debates where every word must be contested are not conducive to low wiki-stress levels. Although, to judge by your Dresden three-year old debate, you seem to handle it better than most. The greek word would be chalcenterous, guts of copper! I was hoping to help resolve this issue but it doesn’t look very likely at this juncture, although I am always happy to be surprised.Xenovatis (talk)

Sockpuppetry case
Please comment at Suspected sock puppets/AhmadinV. Thank you. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 15:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolving the PGG dispute
Hi Phillip,

I have been involved in this dispute since May 2006, I am as keen to be rid of it as anyone else. That is why I have again proposed the idea of an informal arbitration by third party editors. My rationale is that the main disputants withdraw and a fresh set of experienced editors make a judgement. We can all make our statements and provide our sources and they can make a decision based on these and their own assesment. Do you find this feasible? Thanks, --A.Garnet (talk) 11:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Halbe
Hi Philip, reading the article and the talk I assume you might be able to tell me where the place called "Mark" on the Strasse 96 is supposed to be - I'm under the impression there's no such place. KapHorn (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. While I'm at it, thank you for the welcome and the links - am reading currently.

Still disagree, but before I delve more deeply into the matter, I'll try and take a look at the book by Beevor. Anyhow, saying the battle occured in the Spreewald is like saying the Battle of Britain happened in the Cotswolds. Main fighting happened elsewhere, and Halbe is not in the Spreewald, either.

As to Baruth, the name of the town is Baruth/Mark, Baruth being the actual name, and "Mark" referring to Baruth being in the "Mark", namely the Mark Brandenburg. So, read: Baruth in the Mark. Google maps does not show it differently, either. I would suggest to correct the article, no matter what the source says. Unless there's further information to the contrary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margraviate_of_Brandenburg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruth KapHorn (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, forgotten about that truth vs. verifiability part. Though I still wonder wether a simple map would'nt be sufficient. Even GoogleMaps shows Baruth/Mark, as well as both Wikipedia (german and english), and every road map I possess. Must admit, at a point in my life, I considered the Mark my backyard, so I'm prejudiced. Still think the article should say Baruth. Found several geographical inconsistencies in the article, as well as the one on the german 9th Army, and at least one obvious mistake in the latter (no, I haven't edited), but before pursuing, will try and take a look at source. By the way, would there be a more appropriate way or forum to continue a lengthy exchange? KapHorn (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thnx. Just wasn't sure wether this rather minor issue rated so much space. KapHorn (talk) 07:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Me again. Responded on talk:battle. Also, added question regarding references to Beevor to talk page of 9th Army (Germany). Tried to find out who wrote, thought it might have been you. Lastly, am wondering about use of Beevor as source to a certain extent. Short explanation on talk:Berlin-the downfall1945. Thought I should let you know. --KapHorn (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Bosniaks
Greetings. I've noticed you are one of the editors who has edited the Bosniaks article. I was wondering if you would have any input into a few "revert wars" happening lately over there. Here's a diff. Personally, I think the changes are biased, a little racist/xenophobic, but mostly, they are wrong.

P.S, I've sent this message to a few of the users I've seen in the page history to try to get a discussion started. 121.222.199.140 (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

defeat in the field
Hi Philip. I can see you are busy, but I was wondering if you can spare advice on there being an actual category of defeat in the English language called "defeat in the field". Secondly, can it still be applied to a force which is not in the field as it were, but in fact are besieged--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 13:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Occupation of Czechoslovakia by Nazi Germany
Can you fix the talk page so we can talk about this? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of Wikipedia rules suggests that moves which are controversial should be requested and discussed, whereas you have just undertaken a large series of article moves without any discussion. Not exactly what I'd call polite. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Two wrongs don't make a right. IZAK's move was done over 3 months ago, so I don't see how this qualifies as a "revert." - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubt your moves were done in absolute good faith, but I think the reason there was no outcry when IZAK made the changes 3 months ago is that people considered the move a good one. I remember being confused by that move as well, but when I looked at what was done, it made sense. I realize you put a lot of work into these moves, but I hope you'll consider changing things back. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

English people
Hi, I think the section about English national vs English ethnic identity is really nicely balanced now, and I think you have worked hard to make it so. Just wanted to say that I appreciate the work you have done. Alun (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Occupation
It's a proper noun, "the Occupation", in general usage (see e.g. Texts relating to the German Occupation of the Channel Islands). The Dictionnaire Jersiais-Français gives "Otchupâtion" and "Occupation" as proper nouns when referring to the period 1940-1945. Follows the same pattern as e.g. Glorious Revolution, July Monarchy and other historical periods - unless those are descriptions? Man vyi (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Bosniaks as Anglicans :)
I had added that paragraph regarding the religion. I believe it should be brought forward, but I don't know what kind of source can be cited for it. Do you have an idea? (I will not change it back without a source) --VKokielov (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Silly sockpuppeting...
I am NOT a sockpuppet of anybody. I am on this wikipedia too long, and you should know it, what are my interest and style. Am I sockpuppet when I just happen to agree with somebody who insist on ICTY sources (and others that are reliable)? My arguments are there, and I don't even want to discuss about sock puppeting, even you could check it, and find that I am not nobody's sock puppet. It's up to you. --HarisM (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * One more thing... Some users already accused me of that, and apologized after a while. I said what I had on Bosnian War talk page, about Osli, maybe you should check on him, because I am sure that he is a sockpuppet of . And of course I don't mind that you check on me...I have nothing to hide, I am an old user of this Wikipedia. I just restored some parts that Osli removed, nothing more, nothing less. I happen to agree with that ICTY sources are most valid. I don't care about Osli's fight with sockpuppets, because he was blocked once because of that on Srebrenica massacre article, I condemn them all.

It is interesting that you didn't react about Osli's vandalism in Srebrenica massacre article, when he removed (he does that all the time), some quotes from the ICTY verdict which means you are biased. Why?

--HarisM (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Logically - NO. --HarisM (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding your question:


 * (4) What do you mean by biased?


 * I mean, you protected Bosnian mujahideen article for a month because you and Osli are on the same side, and you are administrator too. I know this can be interpreted as misuse of Wikipedia policies. You two cooperated together, and didn't listen to other users. I will repeat this. I don't care who the users are, I don't care about sockpuppet methods, I condemn Osli as well as Grandy and whoever was a sockpuppet or a sockpuppeteer. I just care about sources. And Osli as well as you, didn't listen to other users. There are different views. Is it possible that you didn't even include some parts Osli completely removed from version two (propaganda section)?! Propaganda about Mujahideen is also supported by ICTY and removing it is silly. (Read my complete comment about that in the talk page). I explained about Osli's sneaky vandalism and his misrepresentation of sources on both Bosnian War talk, and Bosnian mujahideen talk. I compared his sentences with the correct ones from his own sources, and showed that he cheated. And what was his answer? He avoided to answer my questions saying: "What you have done above is very confusing...could you please structure your arguments". He didn't even read that, he just repeats the same question, because he wants to keep his version. As well as you...And your comment was: "Leave a message on my talk page when there is agreement to unprotect the page." Agreement with whom? With Osli who avoids to read a comment?! You, who is on his side, and protected the article? This is really far far away from the spirit of Wikipedia and fairness. --HarisM (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

User:HarisM
Hi, as you may know I am now discussing differences on the Bosnian War and Bosnian mujahideen articles with User:HarisM. However, he is using quite an aggressive tone and making some smaller personal attacks. Some examples from the Talk:Bosnian mujahideen page: I don't feel it warrants any 'official' sanction, but I would appreciate if you dropped him a note asking him to change his tone. It's just not very nice to discuss in that type of atmosphere. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "I think the real problem is in your attitude"
 * "I condemn them as well as you"
 * "And again another lie"
 * "''I will show you that you based your edits on pure sneaky vandalism"
 * "which means you don't care about arguments. That's is exactly what is this all about. I showed that you cheated"

protect Alija Izetbegović article
Hi, could you please also protect the Alija Izetbegović article as it is descending into the same type of edit war (often with the same edits as old User:Grandy Grandy & co.) as in Bosnian war and Bosnian mujahideen. Thank you. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Srebrenica 'alternative theories'
Hi Philip,

I just wanted to say I appreciate the constructive tone of your edits (it appears you are an administrator here, so maybe that's why... :-)

I'm just letting you know I reverted your putting the 'alternative views' references into footnote form, as it seems to me it's somewhat slanted (?) not to include them in the 'external reading' section, where they have been for some time.

But I think I can see an argument for what you've done -- the sentence which it was linked from does seem to want a more comprehensive list of references rather than just one article on the 'Byzantine Sacred Art' blog...

Is there any way of hyperlinking a footnote to the external reading/alternative views section perhaps? Or is there a specific reason you believe the alternative-views references belong in a footnote? Please feel free to reply to me on my talk page (or over on the article page, or here)... I just wanted to make clear I wasn't editing your change in anger at all.

Finally, I fear I may have re-introduced a couple of references you may have wished to keep invisible (I wasn't aware of that command with the broken arrow thingy); this was unintentional but I'm not sure what the reasoning was, so feel free to revert that part. Cheers Jonathanmills (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)