User talk:PBS/Archive 15
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Huh?
You're kidding with this "technical close", right? I am sooo gonna BRD this - seriously? This discussion is not closed and has no reason to be closed at this time. Doc talk 08:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- For you to say, "Personally I think that "Yoghurt" is the "Correct" spelling..." and close this thread as a purportedly unbiased admin is improper. Per your admitted contribution to this debate, you should recuse yourself from any such action. Think about it, please. Doc talk 08:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I knew you'd get heat for that closure, but it was the correct thing to do. The RM was never going to gain consensus so soon after the last one (consensus can change, but it needs time to do so), doubly so with all the incivility flying around. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I've undone and commented at ANI about it (under your comment). Hot Stop talk-contribs 14:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Tweaking Include-USGov
Restoring end of discussion from archive, because it is still a live issue ---
- There are a few issues with the core template structure as you are proposing:
- Sometimes {{Include-USGov}} is called directly from an article, when an obscure governmental agency's PD material is used. {{Include-USGov}} is highly protected --- non-admins (such as myself) will not be able to edit it to include new agencies, so they'll be stuck.
- If all outer templates will redirect to {{Include-USGov}}, then we'll lose the ability to specialize the template (e.g., the comment field in {{USGS}}).
- If outer templates don't redirect to {{Include-USGov}}, I don't understand the advantage of the new template structure (although perhaps you can enlighten me). —hike395 (talk) 06:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Your action on Talk:Yoghurt clearly did not have either community or admin consensus, and therefore should not have been done - you cannot take it upon yourself to act unilaterally to shut down such an involved and contentious issue (much as we'd like to see the back of it) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Protecting Talk:Yoghurt against non-admin editing is an abuse of admin privileges - if you do that again you will have to face your peers at WP:ANI -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
December 2011
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I really hate to do this, and it's my first block of an admin, but you cannot unilaterally shut the community up (which even extended to protecting the Talk page against non-admin editing), and you must not wheel-war when your blatantly non-consensus actions are reverted. I need to pop out briefly now, but as soon as I am back, I will refer my own actions here to WP:ANI -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, 24 hours was excessive, sorry - I've reduced it to 3 hours, and I would be delighted to unblock completely if you give us an assurance you will not edit-war to close the discussion without consensus and that you will not again protect the page against non-admin editing -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
PBS (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Zebedee, you also to think, given that you were involved in this with me, whether your move was the correct one, or if you should have asked at ANI for another administrator to take this blocking action.
It seems to me that this is a misunderstanding. My actions were not edit warring. It was simply an administrative move to stop edit warring while it was discussed at ANI. A block or my account is not exactly going to allow this to be discussed at ANI.
OK let us suppose that this RM runs until its end. Then, as this RM was allowed to run so soon after the last, if another is bought almost immediately, what is the justification for stopping that one? There is a good reason not to hold RMs etc too soon after the last one, unless there is a clear reason to do so. None has been shown for this RM.
Accept reason:
Happy to unblock - it was with great regret that I blocked in the first place. I really do want you to join in the discussion, and I am currently composing a request for a review of my actions. On the subject of the RM, yes, I think one that had an outcome that wasn't "No consensus" would be great way forward. Anyway, look forward to discussing it further on the appropriate forum. (And what do you mean, cluttered? I reckon it's well laid out and informative ;-) Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
AN/I
Hi. I've requested a review of my actions regarding the Talk:Yoghurt page, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#My block of admin User:PBS - review please, and would welcome your thoughts -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Are you an admin open to recall? There are several people calling for an arbcom case. If this all could avoid that time sink, I feel that it would be best for the community. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Bengal famine of 1943
Hi Philip, could you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll#Genocides_and_Alleged_Genocides ? Thank you, Tobby72 (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
barnstar
thank you. as you see my enthusiasm is greater than my knowledge of citations. good to have the Rich Farmbrough list cleared. tempest in a teapot, i expect you'll agree, given the looming backlog of 1911. if i get through other tasks, maybe i will return to it. definitely needs renewed project reinforcements. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 02:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Robert Duncanson (Army officer), you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Anglo-French War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for your tips.
By the way, I'm interested in finding perl source code for modifying the way wikipedia pages are displayed and for data structures. I'm basically hungry for code with which to manipulate and display the contents of articles.
Are you a perl programmer?
I'm also interested in learning from perl scripts applied to Wikipedia in any way. Do you have any? The Transhumanist 00:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Eglantine Wallace (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link to James Wallace
- John Jewell Penstone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link to National Portrait Gallery
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I quoted you in this rfc
I took the liberty to use a quote of yours to put you down in support of the original wording at this new rfc section so you didn't have to repeat yourself. Feel free to delete/change or whatever as appropriate... they are your words. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 22:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Competence
Your inability to assess sources is concerning. Are you aware that Crabtree Publishing publishes childrens books? As such their products, while no dobut great for kids, do not belong in an encyclopedia. Nev1 (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Season's tidings!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
Thanks
With regards to this edit American English uses "northwest" while British English does not concatenate the words, and either leaves them as "north west" or hyphenates them as in "north-west". -- PBS (talk) 07:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Many thanks for this information, that is something I didn't know. ----Remotelysensed (talk) 14:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
File:Cross of Sacrifice.jpg missing description details
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Green beret#Finnish Marine Commandos
(edited copy of what I wrote on the Talk page:)
"05:18, 4 January 2012 PBS (talk | contribs) (10,917 bytes) (Rv to last version by EoGuy. No evidence given that they are linked in anyway to the other units in this article. Please discuss on the talk page, Why this unit should be mentioned here.)"
where exactly does it say in the article "only units that have connection to the other units mentioned will be allowed"? the name of the article is "Green beret" and most of the units listed are marine special forces, Finnish Marine Commandos ARE special forces and use the exact same beret as the other units, both of which were made quite clear in my edit. Ape89 (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Treaty of Edinburgh & slighting
Think Samuel Haynes, ed., (1740), p.354, is good for the Treaty, and have put the googlebooks ref in Slighting. This letter is the source (only source?) for strengths of temporary residual French garrisons. You might like Alexander Crichton of Brunstane for an intriguing slighting story. Kind regards,Unoquha (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
RM on John VI
Thank you for your analysis at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Premature RM closure of John VI of Portugal. I have authored a long and sad reply which will make no one happy. The gist of which is that I don't agree with your final suggestion, I do not think the decision should be left to the closing admin User:the ed17. Taking the cat out of the bag, I believe his original actions were not only in error, but appear to be unethical, that the close seems to have been elicited by or done as a favor to a friend, that the closing admin intentionally violated WP policy. I know my proof is circumstantial, but it has all the appearance of it.
As a result, I cannot agree with your conclusion. I don't believe the Ed is competent to make this decision, having appeared to act with impropriety the first time, it should not be up to him. He should have recused himself the first time, and should be relieved of the decision now. I would like a different neutral admin to take the matter into their hands.
Since you have conducted this analysis most carefully, and have reached the conclusion that the "close and move" was indeed an error, and no other neutral admin has looked at it and disputed that conclusion, I don't understand why the decision can't be taken up by either yourself, or another admin. Why does it have to be the closing admin? I am a little puzzled by this.
This has all been a very unhappy experience, and I am sure we are all eager to put it behind us. I don't understand why it has to be dragged on.
This has been an exhausting and nightmarish experience. I have been on wikipedia for a few years, and although I've seen my share of contentious situations, never have I seen nor been subjected to such gangland behavior. Even so, I bear neither the Ed nor Lecen any ill, and would be happy to forgive and forget. Walrasiad (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Dear PBS,
Thank you for resolving the 3RR. And thank you for the advice on my talk page. I have taken it to heart, and stayed away from the ANI, and composed a more careful analysis of the case (for the RM, not Ed_17's closure) in the John VI talk page. Nonetheless, upon seeing Ed 17's replies on the ANI, I felt like his explanations were sincere, and that I owed Ed 17 a personal apology, so I took the liberty of submitting one on his talk page earlier today. He hasn't responded there, and I don't blame it if he doesn't. But I think it might be proper on my part to write something publically along those lines at the ANI, i.e. that I am reasonably satisfied by the sincerity of his explanations and thank him for clearing it up. If, however, you believe that is inadequate and will only inflame matters further, I will refrain. Walrasiad (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
EDIT: I decided to submit it anyway. It is the least I owe Ed after putting him through this public ordeal. Walrasiad (talk) 06:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
You may also be interested
to know that Belgians used Latvian POWs (Waffen SS) for live target practice until they were told the Latvians weren't Nazis. I should also mention that as the Baltic Waffen SS were stationed at Nuremberg as guards, the facts of the matter were clear then and clear now who was fighting whom and for what purpose. Haven't seen you interested in Baltic-related topics until now. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Alas, I always thought it was short term memory that was the first to go. :-) I'm hoping to put up some references on the Courland Pocket this year. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 20:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Zoot tower
Yes, sorry you are correct, it is 2003 for Penguin, I'll make the changes, cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited James Guthrie (Scottish Presbyterian divine), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Perth, General Assembly and James Sharp (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Thomas Chaloner (naturalist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Cecil (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
File:Cross of Sacrifice.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cross of Sacrifice.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. :Jay8g Hi!- I am... -What I do... WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM 00:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
My statement to Elen
My statement to Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs) about our dispute regarding WT:AT recognizability was so long I put it in a separate file, User:Born2cycle/DearElen. If you have a chance to look it over, and let me know if you find any inaccuracies or other problems with it, I would appreciate it. If you don't mind, please leave comments about it at User talk:Born2cycle/DearElen. Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Zurara
Hi PBS. Now that the whole John VI debacle has died down (thanks for your patience and mediation with that, BTW), I'd like to refer back to our earlier tussle on the citation structure on the Gomes Eanes de Zurara page. You did not reply to my note there and have probably forgotten quite about it. Let me reiterate my discomfort with citation templates and my hope that you will consent to allow me to reverse them without counter-reversing, so I can resume working on that page. I can insert the Britannica references manually for the cut-and-paste sections (although that section will be purged and redone completely). But that citation template is not something I can work with. Walrasiad (talk) 10:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Frederick H. Dyer
Hi,
I note you created Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion a few years back. I have been working on User:MarcusBritish/Sandbox/Frederick H. Dyer. Out of interest, do you have a copy of the Compendium, and if so, which edition? Specifically, I'm looking out for someone with a Morningside Press publication, so 1978, 1979 or 1994 edition. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish[chat] 09:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I know which editor created all the Union regiment articles, but he used an online version of the Compendium. Reason I need someone with a Morningside edition, is because those editions have a new 3-page introduction written by some guy called Lee A. Wallace Jr. which may possibly include extra biographical info on Dyer not in the 1959 edition Intro, which I have, by Bell Irwin Wiley. If a 1978+ owner can send me the 3 pages, scanned or as photographs, it might prove useful for citing or expanding the article a little more. Thanks though, Ma®©usBritish[chat] 10:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Firestorm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Harris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Order of battle for the Battle of Berlin
Please see Talk:Order of battle for Battle in Berlin--Corpusfury (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Death of Adolf
Hello! I've seen your note about sfn/harvnb etc at Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler. Would it make more sense to integrate it into the preceding section, where the hoo-hah built up and then Dianna proposed an opinion? The point being that everything is kept in one place? I have no particular opinion regarding the outcome, or at least not until I have had the opportunity to see a debate regarding the pro's/con's. My original concern was wrt the lack of discussion. Wikilawyering, if you want to call it that, but without any particular angst involved. - Sitush (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Historian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Gray (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
PBS: Thanks for helping with finding cites recently on several WW II articles of mutual interest. This article still needs some cite work in the section of "Post-war events"; if you can help out with cites therein, that would be appreciated. Kierzek (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Re: Norse Paganism RM Close
Philip, I think your point is a good one and IMHO highlights to some extent the dysfunctional nature of our overall titling policy and associated processes, especially if viewed holistically. This particular close I feel was within process and although close, reflected the local consensus after two weeks of discussion. That in no way implies that you, I or others (editors who did not participate in the discussion) think the current title is the correct title. However, as an admin, I was charged with deciding which way consensus in the discussion was leaning and in this case a move was made. Where our policies and process become dysfunctional are highlighted by your call to Commonname. None of the editors participating in the discussion invoked it as the policy and process doesn't require them to. Had you or others that believe Commonname is a driving policy in this case participated in the discussion, I am confident the result would have been different. Looking at this holistically here are some of the major dysfunctions:
- Any editor can move a title to a new title without any consideration of a policy based rationale as long as deletion of an existing title is not required. (Moves outside any RM process)
- Any admin can move a title to a new title without any consideration of a policy based rationale even if deletion of the existing target is required. (Moves outside any RM process)
- Within the RM process, moves can be made without any vetting of a policy-based rationale if they are uncontested (Technical and uncontested RM moves)
- Within the RM process, there is no requirement to provide a policy-based rationale holistically as our policy WP:AT and WP:MOS provide no logical relationship/priority between five broad policy buckets--recognizability and naturalness (essentially commonname and reliable sources), precision (ambiguity and disambiguation), neutrality (NPOV), and conciseness and consistency (essentially style considerations). We allow and the language in WP:AT gives license to arguments based solely on anyone of these buckets with a complete disregard to the others. In the case of Norse Paganism that is exactly what happened. NPOV (and maybe recognizability) became the only policy basis for the move. The editors participating in the move discussion were under no obligation to consider Commonname.
Now, of immediate concern. I know little of the subject Norse Paganism so I can't judge the title on its merits without the help of individuals like you who do understand the subject. But our dysfunctional process works to your advantage here. If I were you, I would open another RM with whatever you believe the title should be based on the policy rationale COMMONNAME and with some NPOV consideration. As the admin who closed the previous RM, I will not object and will actually support your actions if someone else objects. Our current policy allows it. Thanks for raising this because I think in the long run, its dysfunction like this that will drive overall, holistic improvements in the policy and process. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Philip. I have reverted my close at your request. I will recuse myself from further involvement in this RM. Thanks. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Advice sought on RM situation
Philip, as you and I had a recent discussion related to RMs, I thought I’d ask your advice on this situation. On January 17, this RM was initiated. I watched the discussion everyday. On Feb 6, I relisted the discussion with this comment essentially saying it’s been a stalemate so far and unlikely to result in anything but a no consensus decision unless one side or the other made significant movement. On Feb 7, an involved editor opened this tread Closing the move discussion that began discussing how the RM should be closed. On Feb 8, another thread entitled 218.250.159.25 was opened that began impuning the motivations of various IP editors who contributed to the RM discussion. I considered all of these threads as connected—RM, closing the move and the IP discussion. The direction of the discussion was clear, there was no consensus developing and bad behavior on the part of some was making the discussion personal. On Feb 11, I closed the discussion as no consensus. [1]. Within 90 minutes, an involved editor (not an admin), reverted my close claiming that I had not let it run for 7 days after relisting. This was done without discussion or even asking me about it. I engaged the involved editor here on their talk page [2], but as of now there has been no movement on his part and I doubt there will be. I don’t think reverting my close without asking me about it is in any way acceptable behavior. However, I am not going to enter into a revert war about this as there is zero upside to that. Additionally, I am not going to close this RM again (I actually think the involved editor thinks I am). My question to you is this. Apart from my close only 5 days after relisting, which may or may not have been a tactical error (there was significant indication that other editors wanted this RM closed), does this behavior on the part of an involved editor in an RM discussion warrant discussion at ANI? Any advice will be appreciated. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Edward Matthew Ward
please check my usage at Edward Matthew Ward; please respond to User talk:Paul Barlow per his comment at Template talk:Cite EB1911. i am unable to respond in a civil manner. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 20:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- thank you very much. perhaps i should have used inline as you changed. i keep hoping that the use of notes will encourage some book sources, to join in. perhaps we shouldn't use attribution but rather references. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 23:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
MSU Interview
Dear PBS,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
- Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
- Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
- All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
- All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
- The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
WT:AT
Is it safe to presume you're keeping an eye on the developing proposed "clean up" edits of the criteria section being discussed at WT:AT? If you think there is an issue with the direction we're heading, it would be better to hear from you sooner rather than later. Or can we assume "no news is good news"? Really nothing fundamental is changing, so I presume you're okay with it; just want to make sure. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
cleaning up citations
Hi PBS. You have earlier this evening amended a new citation on Francis Fane. Now when I click on the ref it takes me to something mysterious which says Motten 2008. I do not find this the least informative. What am I doing wrong? Eddaido (talk) 10:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Click on Motten 2008. It take you from the short citation to the full reference in the General Reference section. -- PBS (talk) 10:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Alexander Swinton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to John Baird, Eccles, James Dalrymple and Hew Dalrymple
- John Swinton (politician) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to John Hope, Tolbooth, Duke of Richmond and Lennox and William Lockhart
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
PBS, I was not aware of WP:NOTBROKEN. I take it that the problem with this edit is in Line 33 rather than Line 76? Hamish59 (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Would 1st Panzer Army be better than First Panzer Army? Hamish59 (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- As I say, I was unaware of WP:NOTBROKEN and have been happily "fixing" all the redirects. I have been demused by how many veriations there exist: 1st Panzer Army (Germany), First Panzer Army (Germany), 1st Panzer Army, First Panzer Army, German 1st Panzer Army, German First Panzer Army, often used within the same article (as in Prague Offensive), and of course Panzerarmee, Panzer-armee, Panzer-gruppe, Panzergruppe etc. etc. I suppose the only surprise is that I have not found I Panzer Army plus all variations. I was trying to tidy this up without changing the look of the articles themselves. So, for Prague Offensive, the original (?) author wanted to use "First Panzer Army" rather than "1st Panzer Army" hence the change. Hamish59 (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Splitting German Armies
This is an entirely separate issue, as you say, nothing to do with WP:NOTBROKEN hence I am putting in a separate section here. I can assure you that I have no "political" agenda. Merely a belief that, for example, the German 1st Army in World War One was completely unrelated to the German 1st Army in World War Two. I thought that was the concensus reached on the military history talk page. Or have I got this wrong? Hamish59 (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 10:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
SudoGhost 10:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Philip, I tried to close your requested move to help clear the backlog, but I see there was no consensus (i.e. no discussion) to move it in 2009, and no consensus now to move it back, and things are complicated further by the fact that it was moved in 2009 by someone later banned for sockpuppetry. I'm therefore unsure how to proceed with it. Can you ask neutrally for other input on relevant Wikiprojects and the like? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 19:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- There seem to be equal numbers and good points on both sides, which is why it's tricky. You might want to ask Ealdgyth to have a look, as this kind of sourcing issue lies within her area of expertise. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Electorate of Hessen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hessen-Kassel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Army in India
Hi Philip, greetings, we haven't interacted in a while. It is my strong conviction that the highest headquarters for the Army in India was actually known as 'General Headquarters, India.' The reference you added to the page which is now at India Command, from a book seemingly about the Vietnam War, are, I believe, incorrect. Core histories of the British or Indian Armies will, I believe, show this (eg 'We Shall Shock Them' and others). (Leo Niehorster using 'X Command' sometimes inaccurately all over the place doesn't help things though.) Are you willing to open a dialogue on this? Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia self-referencing in template space
What is this? May I ask you to read WP:Manual_of_Style/Self-references_to_avoid carefully (note that self-reverences are only "not encouraged" in template space) or point out where this issue is being discussed on the talk page? Also note that the {{cleanup}} template is for Wikipedia maintaining and not on the topic of an article. Thanks, Nageh (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I was looking for an explanation on the guideline's talk page, somehow missing your addition of a comment at Template talk:Cleanup#Notification. Nageh (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
A number of people (including me) don't agree with your revert here. In light of this, I was wondering if you would consider putting the message back? Tra (Talk) 03:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Could you look at this page?
Hello, I've been looking for an editor with a background in terrorism issues to help develop the page Terrorism in the People's Republic of China. I initially left a note on BonifaciusVIII's talk page, but he/she does not appear to be very active on the project these days, so I have come to you.
I began working on the page a few weeks ago (here's the before[3] and after[4]) after noticing that it had some serious problems. Ultimately I would like to see if it can reach GA standards, though I fear that, in the absence of judicious, knowledgeable editors offering constructive feedback, the process of achieving consensus will be fraught with disruptions. I've made several proposals on the talk page suggesting ways the article could be improved,[5] but am mostly talking to myself.
If you have some time, I would very much appreciate if you could weigh in on the general direction of edits, or contribute in other ways as you see fit. My research background is in Chinese politics, but I have only a small amount of formal education related to terrorism. I may be missing some level of nuance in my reading of these issues. Also, seeing as terrorism related topics are inescapably controversial, I want to ensure that everything is being handled with adequate care. Let me know if you're interested. Homunculus (duihua) 20:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Re:Notification
Please, reply. Bulwersator (talk) 07:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Revert_requested_on_Template:Cleanup) Bulwersator (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Dated maintenance templates
When you create a new dated maintenance template or add maintenance dating to an existing template, as you did recently to {{Rayment}} and {{Rayment-hc}}, it would be very helpful if you would also add the template to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Dated templates so AnomieBOT knows what to do with all the articles suddenly dumped into the dated maintenance category. Otherwise, AnomieBOT ends up sending me an email with thousands of lines complaining that it can't find any template to date in each one of those articles and asking me to manually fix things.
Of course, don't do this if there is need for someone to go through and do something more intelligent than "add |date={{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} to all existing instances", but in that case it would be even better to have someone do that before activating the dating feature. Anomie⚔ 18:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
You reverted an edit I made here a couple of days ago; I’ve opened a discussion on it, if you wish to comment. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Re: your edit, does it make a an actual functional difference if the parameters are unset, vs. set but empty? I'm aware that the template scripting language is capable of detecting the difference between the two situations, but in practice nearly all templates handle the two situations equivalently. As far as I know, {{cite encyclopedia}} does.
Perhaps using
author={{{author}}}
instead of
author={{{author|}}}
would result in an unset parameter rather than a set-but-empty parameter? A quick test could be done to check.
-- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
unexpected discovery: two types of URLs for Dictionary of Canadian Biography
At the Étienne Guy article, I came across this external link:
Note the difference from the usual URL. This "BioId" number is not the same, it fails if put into a {{Cite DCB}} template.
Doing a search for the name at the DCB website produced a conventional URL:
Just wanted to let you know in case you were unaware of these old "BioId" URLs. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Review Request
If you get some time would you consider reviewing the Western Betrayal article and the talk pages? In my opinion the article is practically owned by a gang of POV-pushing editors who always chime in as a group whenever the substance of he article is challenged. I find the article blatantly offensive and one sided, but the only edits allowed are shallow and deceptive "compromises" when the police here manage to turn the debate on the talk page to extraneous minutia...also note the histories of the main article protagonists here who have a long history of proven trouble on wiki in current and previous usernames. Please help, thanks. 98.92.207.190 (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, I saw your review on the WB talk page and appreciate the time you took. The above editor is right to say that the page is dominated by a small, yet determined group of editors and fails to reflect a broader view on the subject. I fear though that your comments will disappear into the mists of time and the situation will not change for the better :( Let's hope I'm wrong. Malick78 (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Editors deleting entries on your talk page
| comments deleted by user:Volunteer Marek |
|---|
72.145.253.232 (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC) Hello, thanks again for your thoughtful work on Wikipedia. Your own talk page is being edited (comments deleted) by another editor - this illustrates the depth of desperation and felonious intent of this editor. Thanks again.72.145.253.232 (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
|
Another editor is so afraid of his own history that he is editing and deleting items from your talk page, despite being warned against doing so. Please look t what has been deleted from your talk page and look very closely at who has been doing the deletingon your page and elsewhere.
64.134.58.83 (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Philip--
- Thank you for collapsing all of the nonsense (including my own posts) on the Western betrayal talk page. I had been trying to find the template for COLLAPSE but didn't know what it was called. My intention had been to add use of the template to this post of mine:
- My complaint is simply with the deletions of posts that take issue with the POV in this article and talk page. A far better procedure, if a sock is known, would be to strikeout the post, and to challenge the poster as a sock. If a post needs to be deleted, it should be done by a neutral party.
- You have probably seen that while I was disturbed by the deletions made by User:Volunteer Marek to that article talk page, I was shocked and infuriated by his deletion of posts from others to my own user talk page. Now I see that he has done exactly the same thing not only on User:Malick78's user talk page, but to yours as well.
- I'm not at all familiar with Wikipedia's rules and procedures, but I have never encountered this kind of behavior before, even in the most bitter disputes. I don't have a policy to refer to, but I can't believe this is acceptable, for an editor to simply delete posts that he objects to or disagrees with. I don't know Volunteer Marek other than from my having come to the Western betrayal page a few days ago, nor do I otherwise know anything about Malick78, who has now posted the following on my talk page:
- Hi, on the WB talk page you mention reporting VM for deleting posts. Well, here he has deleted a post from my talk page (not his post, another editor's), which has annoyed me quite a lot. I'll happily support you in any administrative action you decide to take against him now or in the near future (I'd do it myself, but I'm not quite sure how it works and fear he knows the ropes better, having gone through such processes before). He is the first to complain at any perceived slight, yet breaks as many, and frequently more, rules as those he complains about. Malick78 (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- I try not to get involved in disputes here, but surely this behavior of Volunteer Marek's is unacceptable, and some sort of administrative disciplinary action is warranted. Milkunderwood (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hello, you asked me on my talk page not to revert VM's talk page. You mention WP:TALK policy, yet as far as I can see (though of course I may have missed it) - it says he shouldn't delete my posts (unless they are personal attacks) - and says nothing about me reverting (which is essentially adding a new post (albeit identical to a previous one)). Specifically, it says: "Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection." I objected and he continued to delete/revert my edits. Meanwhile, the times when he can delete are specifically stated there and none seem to concern my comments. Please explain the basis for your warning. Again I would underline - my comments on his page were complaints that HE deleted info on MY talk page. I find it very ironic that now I've been criticised. Malick78 (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Western Betrayal needs you
The Western Betrayal article is turning very volatile. See its talk pages. Please stay involved and please continue the approach of sound moderation that has served you and Wikipedia so well.184.36.234.102 (talk) 04:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I did file the SPI here [6].VolunteerMarek 00:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
It's certainly better, but to me it looks very odd, as surely in the Civil War sense a capital R is always used? I suspect more of these are coming and just wanted to say I prefer the pattern of Edmund Dunch (Roundhead). Moonraker (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Helpm with unilateral deletions by another editor
Hello, after your fair minded intervention at the Western Betrayal article I was inspired to give up only watching Wikipedia for yers and actually join up. My well sourced edit was immediately deleted without discussion. Will you consider taking a look as I don't wish to battle other editors? MarshallGeorgyZhukov (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I just signed up. MarshallGeorgyZhukov (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Review my response at ANI
Hi. Could you review my response at ANI request you made? I think I don't violate any of the policies. WP:STRONGNAT specifically says that:
- Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the US this is month before day; for most others it is day before month. Articles related to Canada may use either format consistently..
Since I'm sure I'm editing articles about a British subject, they can be tagged without throughout review or consensus. 1exec1 (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 9
Hi. When you recently edited Bartholomew Newsam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Strand (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Browne Willis
PB - Thank you for filling up my watchlist :) The Browne Willis template looks good but there are a couple of parliaments where his records are insufficient. In the 1614 list he is almost entirely incorrect. It looks as if he used just a list of members who spoke and then speculatively assigned them to the constituency they had before or after. An accurate list for that parliament is Proceedings in Parliament 1614. Retrieved 2011-10-07. which unlike BW is entirely consistent with other sources. Note that this confirms that Edward Hungerford (the Parliamentarian) was MP for Wootton Bassett in 1614.
BW is also inadequate for the Long Parliament and a better source is The parliamentary or constitutional history of England;: being a faithful account of all the most remarkable transactions in Parliament, from the earliest times. Collected from the journals of both Houses, the records, ..., Volume 9 which lists some intervening MPs that BW misses, gives dates, explains departures and marks MPs as secluded etc.
BW has an errata section which corrects the errors he found. There are many others - particularly incorrect first names, variable spellings of surnames and occasionally switched constituencies. Where he is quite sound is in disambiguating knights, barts and plain esqs with the same name which has proved very useful. Regards Motmit (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 16:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
ww2censor (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Counts of Louvain: new move request
Hi PBS, just a courtesy-message to inform you to I have submitted a move request of "Counts of Louvain" to "Counts of Leuven". You can find my reasoning here: Talk:Counts_of_Louvain. Kind regards, Morgengave (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- While I understand the procedural grounds argument, I do think that the previous move has been done too hastly and in other cases, a rediscussion of the move has then been allowed (like the French community of Belgium page name). I am convinced that contemporary usage strongly favours "counts of Leuven". Google is discredited without proper argumentation, even when it overwhelmingly favours "of Leuven" and includes a wide range of modern sources: academic sources, travelling guides and tourist sites, genealogy sites, news sites, etc. In case of a small difference, the benefit of the doubt, could have been given to "of Louvain", but not in the current circumstances. Contemporary usage also surpasses mere academic usage and even more so, old academic usage. I still need to see a compelling argument from the "counts of Louvain"-side that "of Louvain" has a higher contemporary usage. I will wait another five months, and resubmit the move request. Morgengave (talk) 11:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 17
Hi. When you recently edited Charles de Blanchefort, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Saint-Aignan and Chambry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Re: RM Process
Philip, not quite sure what prompted this, but I will be happy to participate in any discussion you start at WT:RM - Mike Cline (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've followed this discussion in at least 3 places now. Let's go for another! The link PBS left on your talk page, Mike, was to a discussion about an apparent disparity in admins' opinions about when re-opening RM discussions is appropriate. You were quoted as an example of an admin representing the, shall we say, more liberal position on this matter.
Anyway, I agree the best way to proceed is on WT:RM. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
|
Invitation to diacritics guideline discussion at WT:BLP |
| Hi, you were one of 100+ Users who has commented on a living person Requested Move featuring diacritics (e.g. the é in Beyoncé Knowles) in the last 30 days. Following closure of Talk:Stephane Huet RM, a tightening of BLP guidelines is proposed. Your contribution is invited to WT:BLP to discuss drafting a proposal for tightening BLP accuracy guidelines for names. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC) |
Feel free to duplicate this invite on the pages of others who have commented, for or against. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- FWIW I actually don't (didn't) have a bone in this kennel. I couldn't care less about sports stubs. But it seems to me that a protracted and disruptive fight (of which I was unaware) to preserve 100 barely-notable living people called François etc. at names different from their Facebooks and Twitters simply because WPMOS pages have failed to clearly give basic guidance to spell living Europeans' names correctly is not something that adds value to the encyclopedia and to be closed down/off so the disruption doesn't come back yet again. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Editing article titles
I see you have edited title policy page, but I don't see any discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles talk page. Does Arbcom sanctions about not changing policy without wide consensus no longer apply, or did I misunderstand something? Neotarf (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Since PBS apparently believes there is consensus for the change, why bother with discussion? If he's wrong, someone can revert, explain why he or she opposes, and interested parties can discuss further, per WP:BRD, which, by the way, is a supplement to WP:CONSENSUS. So I don't see how the Arbcom sanction or anything else requires discussion prior to any change that is believed to be supported by consensus in good faith, as I'm sure this change was. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Font size in refbegin
I see you requested the option of having no reduction in font size in the refbegin template. If this is something you'd still like, would you mind commenting at Template_talk:Refbegin#Font_size? Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Unfair accusation?
Hello, regarding your recent post(s) on my page, I would like to ask why you think I as well as a user who I have never spoke to, are in fact the same person!? Having looked ta HammyDoo's edits, they have moved one or two pages in a similar form to myself? I resent this greatly and look forward to working together in the future. Thank you Templatier (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Sheriff of Wiltshire
Thanks for your note, which is slightly uncanny. I had followed your discussion at User talk:Plucas58 and as I added that category today I decided to leave you a note along just the same lines but hadn't got around to it. So I am on board. Moonraker (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Page moves to non-english titles
It's bad enough that pro-diacritics editors are pushing their non-english titles. Let's hope we don't start having groups pushing for Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Arabic; etc etc languages into article titles. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Friendly warning about warring at MOSPN
I notice that you and PBS, and maybe some others, may be trying to push back the frontiers of diacritics usage. You have more than made your presence felt at WP:UE, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RM. Now you seem to have opened another front with this series of edits at WP:MOSPN. You actions, apparently in concert with Kauffner, look rather disruptive. What's more, your (collective) actions taken together appear to have breached the threshold of acceptable reverting behaviour. I would therefore ask you to desist, and leave the guideline at its long-dated consensus version until a satisfactory discussion on revised wording can be agreed upon. Thanks for your attention. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Removed from User talk:Ohconfucius and placed here by User:Ohconfucius
Perhaps you would like to look at what you have written on my page, so I can give a coherent answer. -- PBS (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Goodness me, PBS—that you of all people should be issuing unfriendly warnings. I can't work out who's addressing whom on your talk page, anyway. Tony (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Which bit don't you understand? Well, for the absolute avoidance of any doubt, I consider that you have been Wikipedia:Tag teaming with Kauffner, and that I gave you a Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule warning. If either of you do it again, I'll see to it you get blocked. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- (1)"this series of edits at WP:MOSPN." What series of edits (you only linked to one, and I have only made two edits to the page)?
- (2)"You have more than made your presence felt at WP:UE, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RM" What presence and on what dates please?
- (3)"Now you seem to have opened another front", (3.a) What does "another front" mean? However it implies after the other to the pages mentioned above. (3.b) Please give dates to show that the edits at WP:MOSPN were after the alleged connected edits at WP:UE, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RM.
- (4) "You actions, apparently in concert with Kauffner," What actions? What is your evidence for your statement "apparently in concert with Kauffner"? I do not remember ever having exchanged an opinion with Kauffner, do you have a diff for where I have?
- (5) "look rather disruptive" what looks disruptive (diffs please)
- (6)"What's more, your (collective) actions taken together" what collective actions?
- (7)"I would therefore ask you to desist, and leave the guideline at its long-dated consensus version" as a number of editors (more than two) have in the last month contributed to changing it, there can not have been consensus for the previous version. -- PBS (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Pretend you don't know what I'm talking about all you like, but rest in the knowledge that you have been warned. You carry on like that and I will see to it you get blocked. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Firestorm references, copied from Firestorm talk pg
What have you done? you messed up the references altogether, and done so in a really sloppy manner. Who is Glasstone and Doland? The author's name is Dolan. Why did you muck up the references and rewrite the material to suit your own POV?
And as for the last point, yes I agree it would be better to go for something like a direct quote as it may cause confusion amongst readers(as evidenced by you), you even went to the extent of reverting what the source essentially says, so yes instead of my succinct Regardless of what initially causes the fires, including the thermal pulse from a Nuclear Weapon
We should go for the direct quote, that says the same thing - "7.61 The incendiary effects of a nuclear explosion do not present any especially characteristic features. In principle, the same overall result, as regards destruction by fire and blast, might be achieved by the use of conventional incendiary and high-explosive bombs. ..."
But include the sources I REFERENCED, and that you recently found for yourself! so that readers can go direct to GLASSTONE & DOLAN'S book . As it stands right now you have the author's name listed incorrectly and readers can't actually see the referenced material, instead they'd have to buy that 2005 book that copied direct from Glasstone and Dolan's seminal work.
So yes, include the below reference and get rid of the 2005 book as the main reference that copied it, as it is not freely available for readers to read, Glasstone & Dolan's book is more accessible.
- {{Citation|editor-last=Glasstone |editor-first=Samuel |editor2-last=Dolan |editor-first=Philip J. |year=1977 |chapter="Chapter VII — Thermal Radiation and Its Effects |title=The Effects of Nuclear Weapons |edition=Third |publisher=United States Department of Defense and the Energy Research and Development Administration |url=http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/effects/ |chapterurl=http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/effects/eonw_7.pdf#zoom=100 |pages=229, 200, § "Mass Fires" ¶ 7.58
Lastly, I was unaware that a 2005 book had copied the 1977 book, how did you find that out?
You seem to have discovered your error and yet not self corrected it? That's pretty bizarre behaviour.
Boundarylayer (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
List of amphibious assault operations
You asked some questions on talk:List of amphibious assault operations long ago, and I added some new questions on the same page. I would welcome any comments you have now, but on that talk page. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
edit war brewing
I tried to go through proper channels but I couldn't figure just what Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring wants me to do, and how.
In any case, in Continuation War there's an edit war brewing (two users are reverting each other's edits, replacing the reverted text with their own, conflicting information, both also cite sources, but in different languages), and you were the first admin I could find. Ape89 (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- The same users are also fighting in Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive, I am not siding with either one, but maybe someone should keep an eye on them for a while.
Ape89 (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Noted
Thank you, I'm really sorry I didn't know about the limitation of editing per 24 hours. As for the explanations I can provide all sources and references.
Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Pastukh (talk • contribs) 12:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Continuation War
Requesting with regards to Continuation War article that if it might be possible for the contents to be reverted to the status of what they had before the content dispute. As it happens the page is currently locked in state on which only single person (whose editing without any discussion on talk page seems to have caused this) seems to agree and several others disagree. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Terrorism in the PRC (redux)
Thanks for offering advice a couple months back at Terrorism in the People's Republic of China. I did a fair bit of work to try to bring the page into compliance with WP:TERRORIST, though I fear some of those efforts have recently been undone though edits like this:[7]. Given the sensitivity of the term and the fact that it is (like most things) highly politicized in the PRC, it seems to me that claims of terrorism made exclusively by the Chinese government should always be qualified as such. I may be wrong, though. Do you have any thoughts? Homunculus (duihua) 22:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete Nomination 2004 Estoril Open
Hi, please note that the article 2004 Estoril Open has been nominated for deletion along with the subarticles Men's Singles and Men's Doubles. Discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Estoril Open--Wolbo (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Large-scale constructs
You are invited to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism#Large-scale constructs. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Apologies
I honestly did not see your suggestion to discuss based on François Hollande In ictu oculi (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- If I had seen that I wouldn't have speculated about whether there was a language problem. Evidently you know French, let's discuss the effects of these MOSPN changes on French examples. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Just out of interest...
...what is it about my edits that makes me seem like a sockpuppet of a user who appears to be Ukrainian and whose contribution history shows different interests to mine? A simple Whois of my IP address should show I'm based in Warwickshire, UK, and registered to Virgin Media. Not trying to be confrontational, but it did seem a bit leftfield. 86.21.250.191 (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Rochester: Kent or Medway
There is a discussion in which you may be interested on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography#Medway_or_Kent concerning the move of Wikipedia articles from Rochester, Kent to Rochester, Medway. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Editing at Western Betrayal
Is there any way to do this without getting bogged down for hours/days/weeks/months??? ... After some level of peace was reached, Volunteer Marek has resumed deleting anything that doesn't comply with his ultra-patriotic Polish POV at this article. He just a short time ago told us he would no longer edit that topic which coincided with his 6th (or so) ban for ongoing EEML problems. I am speaking specifically to his vast destruction of most of the 'betrayal as myth' section. I have no time to police the article as he does or fight with him constantly. I hope you can help Pultusk (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- It might help your case a bit if 1) you weren't an antagonistic disruptive single purpose account, 2) you stuck to one account rather than abusing multiple accounts at once and 3) you didn't lie your ass off ("6th (or so ban) for ongoing EEML problems...") every time you leave a comment. Add to that a very likely 4), that you are most likely a returned previously banned user. But that last one is just a very strong suspicion backed only by circumstantial evidence (at this point). You were already blocked for disruptive sock puppetry once [8]. Actually that reminds me, time to update that page [9], since you appear to be still at it.VolunteerMarek 22:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Napoleon surrendered...
Hi Philip, I'm so sorry, I haven't kept track of my usernames. I've only changed when I've had to, as when I've signed in without https and been hijacked. That's just given me a thought: if a user has to create a new username, might it be handy if there was some [optional] mechanism to link to the previous name, do you think?
In the subject case, I've a strong recollection that I raised the matter within the last few years, in fact not before Jan 2009, so a trawl of the Waterloo Talk changes might find it. btw, the port where Napoleon was arrested might have been Toulouse. fyi, I recall that last time I made mention of the fact that I'd recently moved home and downsized, and sold like 90% of my library (to a Hay-on-Wye firm). L0ngpar1sh (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Update: I've now seen Alexandru Demian's contribution there, and eventually been able to follow his link, which does sound authorative. L0ngpar1sh (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello again Philip. Sorry, I wasn't clear enough: I do NOT use multiple usernames, on any page. I have used L0ngpar1sh, and ONLY L0ngpar1sh, for maybe two years? I created it because something had happened to the previous one, e.g. some prankish schoolboy had corrupted (I don't know what the Wikipedia technical term is) my previous username, probably because I'd inadvertently signed in without using the secure signin server. OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by L0ngpar1sh (talk • contribs) 09:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Philip, surely I've protested my innocence enough? If I've committed a great sin please tell me. I apologise for for forgetting to sign-in, but I assure you I really would have no idea what my IP address would be, nor how to find it. AFAIK it's dynamic, assigned by my ISP (BT.com) and changed by them frequently.
I've tracked down my last username, which was Forton. It suddenly became unusable in May 2010 - I couldn't and still can't enter the password, so somebody, perhaps a schoolboy, must have changed it.
Really, I'm an innocent user I assure you. Mostly my contributions are just grammatical; I do them when I trip up over something and find I have to reread it more than once. Often in a page which might have been written by a non-native-English speaker. I'm just trying to help! L0ngpar1sh (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
RE: Family members (2)
Message added -- Trevj (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Template talk:User shared IP address private
also this edit (12 June 2012) to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry
See Archive21: Family members and Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_24#Family_members (2) and Template talk:User shared IP address private#Family members
And this edit on 11 September to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. -- PBS (talk) 08:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Proposed ban on LouisPhilippeCharles
Now archived:
-- PBS (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Order of battle for the Battle of Berlin
Thanks for the heads up - forgot about that. cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- withdrawn per the massive prior discussion...I tweaked the opening sentences of one article, I believe these clarify the difference between them a little better now. cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. When you recently edited Wychbury Obelisk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Midlands (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
"Involved"
Hi PBS, regarding your comment "your recent behaviour of moving such article titles without putting in a RM request (or it seems to me going into much detail about English language usage), providing such names to you reminds me of Beans." -- PBS (talk) may I please take the opportunity to reply:
- (i) you yourself are very heavily involved here as one of the major advocates of preferring majority diacritic-disabled English sources for foreign names on repeated edits since 2006. In fact can you think of any editor who has been more involved in edits relating to diacritics on a variety of MOS and WP guideline pages since 2006?
- (ii) WP:MOVE allows moves which follow the best sources and normal editing practice. You are free to follow my edits - which fall well within normal User understanding of sources and guidelines such as WP:IRS, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/France & French-related etc., and revert them as you did for Talk:Ondřej Látal, though I think Bobrayner and others' comments to you about that were justified.
- (iii) despite your expectations in 2006, and since, and perhaps now as well, rightly or wrongly en.wikipedia bio articles are at Latin-alphabet accented names. We have verified this by looking at various subcategories of category:Living people, and my repeated request to you to produce 1x example of a non-stagename, non-monarch, non-ß example to the contrary is eloquent testimony by your silence.
- (iv) you also made a comment about the User who got a topic ban on diacritics for this edit among similar, yet this is exactly the form of lede, contrary to WP:OPENPARA and WP:FULLNAME that you yourself have favoured in past and recent comments. Yet outside of one tennis editor I am not aware of anyone consistently using this lede formula.
- You are entitled to your view, and I respect that it seems you are mainly edit in areas such as nobility and military history where the issue of 1000s of Czech bios does not occur, but nevertheless, your view, no matter how strongly held, no matter how sincere, no matter how convinced that the MOS of popular English sources should hold weight over primary foreign sources, is a small minority view which does not reflect the reality of where en.wikipedia articles are. Please remember this when making comments on Talk pages. Remember also that in this area - diacritics - you stand as an editor not an admin because of your own personal involvement.
- Best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think that was uncalled for. Anyway, I have put a section for your own MOSPN removal underneath. This is formal notification of that. But I don't intend to escalate simply provide a little bit of balance. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Agathoclea (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
ANI
You are on ANI. Anna 20:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 13
Hi. When you recently edited John Jones Maesygarnedd, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Owen, Committee of Safety and Act of Indemnity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Why the capital R? It's late and I'm tired, otherwise I'd felt confident and moved it myself - just wondering if I'm missing something? PamD 22:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Looked around a bit more and it's clearly the convention, both in dabs and in running text contrasted to Parliamentarians. Still not sure about the logic of it, but so be it! Glad I didn't leap in and move the page. PamD 22:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
RfC on the spelling of Vietnamese names
RfC: Should the spelling of Vietnamese names follow the general usage of English-language reliable sources? Examples: Ngo Dinh Diem, Ho Chi Minh, and Saigon, or Ngô Đình Diệm, Hồ Chí Minh, and Sài Gòn. The RfC is here.
have a diff
de-templated previously ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Redcoat
You have made some valid improvements to the above article (including removal of my addition made several years ago suggesting that as a colloquial expression in Britain "redcoat" dates only from the 1880s - Walter Scott clearly predates Kipling). However I think that the Cromwell quote (put in by another editor) that you removed is still more relevant to the actual subject of the article than the overview of the Battle of the Dunes substituted. I propose to restore the former and remove some of the latter, while leaving the sentence flagging this battle as the first occasion that English redcoats were seen on the Continent in place. I agree with your point about a photograph of modern army drummers being a better lead illustration than that of Napoleonic War re-enactors that you deleted. However it did serve a purpose - in illustrating the difference referred to in the article between the scarlet worn by officers' and the duller red of the other ranks' uniform. Accordingly I will restore it further down the text.Buistr (talk) 23:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Discussion took a while to get going, but it now has. Feel free to come and comment! Andrew Dalby 09:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Tb
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
AWB glitch
I just reverted part of this edit of yours; the section in question seems perfectly well referenced. Is this perhaps a glitch in AWB or is there something it spotted that I don't see? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Lords of Baux
Ok, I'll get to updating the references. I was just lazy first and put them at the end for now. JMvanDijk (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
You asked about an edit I did to the Anne de Noailles article. I basically copied the list of children from the article about his wife, Louise Boyer. Unfortunately, that article does not provide a reliable source for this list either.
-- HansM (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I see you suggested more detailed citations for individual judgments (references to page numbers and paragraphs), and you did that for Popović case. Although I would generally view that as great, I think it is not feasible in a Wikipedia article. If that was done for all of the cases cited there we would have half a thousand references, which seems odd. Additionally, new cases are constantly added to the list. I think that correct citation to the judgment, with relevant links, is enough. Perhaps this should be reconsidered. Regards --Accursius (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Please take a look at refs posted. I see you changed the footnotes at the bottom of the family tree to ref tag pairs. I don't know how to put references inside that. If you could update the one below the 4th one, that is for the 4th and last one in the list, and I'll follow the syntax for the rest. I also ref'd a wiki french article. Couldn't find a ruling on what the format for that is. Txs JMvanDijk (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Question re your statement.
Hi I was reading your statement and given what follows I was wondering if an extra negative crept in to the first sentence. Did you really mean " I do not think this arbitration request should not have been brought, as the initial issue was settled at an ANI..." ? Slp1 (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
OK, glad that was cleared up. However, I really don't think you should jump the gun on a technical closure, regardless of what Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington does. The fate of an RM, especially a "big" RM with many participants, cannot rest on a single person.
Here's the analogy: an editor can request speedy deletion of an article if they are the sole author, per CSD G7. But if other editors have contributed, that is no longer applicable. Similarly, unilateral withdrawal of an RM is workable for small obscure RMs in their early stages, when only the proposer has indicated support. But in other cases, after others have indicated support, the proposer does not have ownership of the RM, any more than the original creator of an article has ownership of it. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
PBS- I would ask that you review the recent discussion as to the article. I know you worked on this article long ago. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Medieval Lands
Why after all these years are you launching a crusade against Medeival Lands which has been used as a RS for hundreds of articles?! It relies on primary sources FFS!!!! Thanks to this crusade of yours, the integrity of many of my articles have been undermined and another editor has even had the temerity to accuse me of "tainting the project". Are you trying to drive editors away from Wikipedia or restrict them solely to writing about Pokemon characters or head-giving porn stars?!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- You'll see that I have now answered your questions at the talk page -- sorry, these things always take longer than expected ... There's no problem with SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. There's only one source and we cite it. Andrew Dalby 16:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- I saw your note on mine. Hmm, seems one of us is misreading WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Which are the three reliable sources that you've seen?
- As for the point that "none of it is obvious", could you tell me where that comes into a guideline? I probably don't spend as much time reading guidelines as I should! Andrew Dalby 17:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've now finished what I planned to do on the talk page, so please feel free to comment/discuss/dispute there right away! I'm now working on the article itself: I'll let you know when I'm leaving it. I don't ever war, so if you finally don't like what I've done, just revert it. All the best Andrew Dalby 18:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm leaving the page now, but will return tomorrow. There's quite a bit more to add yet. As you'll see, I'm putting a simplified Medlands footnote in as placeholder for all points at which I aim to find a reliable source. Andrew Dalby 20:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm coming towards the end of what I currently plan to do at Marie, Duchess of Auvergne. I'm really grateful that you and Jeanne brought her to my attention! And thanks for leaving me a clear run to make these improvements. If there are places where you think I've done badly, we could discuss it on the talk page. I know there are still several points where better sourcing is needed, and in some cases I think I can do it: it'll be clear from footnotes which points these are. Andrew Dalby 19:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have now found a source that says she was married three times, so our disagreement over whether saying this was synthesis needn't go to the International Court of Justice after all.
- I have a question. I notice that you added the unsourced-section tag at the point where the Ahnentafel appears. I'd like to know your thinking on this. Seems to me, all Ahnentafels are by their nature uncited, and their format hardly allows for citation (because it is the little lines that could be challenged, and you don't put a footnote against a little line). So, is this particular Ahnentafel somehow more uncited than others? Or should they all, equally, have this tag? Andrew Dalby 20:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response at Talk:Marie, Duchess of Auvergne. I've asked a supplementary question and would be really grateful if you have a chance to answer. Andrew Dalby 13:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm coming towards the end of what I currently plan to do at Marie, Duchess of Auvergne. I'm really grateful that you and Jeanne brought her to my attention! And thanks for leaving me a clear run to make these improvements. If there are places where you think I've done badly, we could discuss it on the talk page. I know there are still several points where better sourcing is needed, and in some cases I think I can do it: it'll be clear from footnotes which points these are. Andrew Dalby 19:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
You know, my initial impression of you was dreadful, and probably yours likewise of me, but there might be quite a lot we'd agree on ... Andrew Dalby 19:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Discussion having apparently ceased at WP:RSN, I've made a small change in the MedLands template and explained at Template talk:Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley. Please comment if you like! Andrew Dalby 16:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi PBS, are you sure it is not a mistake to remove this man from those two categories? regards, Eddaido (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC) I am removing the articles in the categories "17th-century English people" and "category:People of the Stuart period" if the are also in either of the subcategories Roundheads and Cavaliers. There is not a one to one match on Roundheads and Cavaliers in and 17th-century English people as other nationalities can be in that group, but there is a one to one match in the other and any Cavalier not English will still appear in their national category.-- PBS (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Page moves RfC
Thanks for pointing out the complications at the article title RfC. I had no idea there was such a back story. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
- Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
- Research: The most recent DR data
- Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
- Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
- DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
- Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
- Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
--The Olive Branch 19:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Peter III of Portugal
Hi PBS. Since you are aware of the prior acrimonious quarrel over the proposed move of John VI of Portugal, and took an even-handed stance, I would like to appeal to you to keep an eye on the brewing new quarrel involving the same editors over a similar move of Peter III of Portugal (and associated Peter pages) which was recently closed by admin User:Qwyrxian. While I intend to stay out of this, and let the discussion run its course and let Qwyrxian answer for himself, I am a little disturbed by User:Lecen's immediate spate of messages to people who voted like him, urging them to protest the closing admin on his talk page. I am not sure if this qualifies as WP:CANVASS. (It also leads me to wonder exactly how the original pile-on happened and why it was so bereft of arguments other than "I agree with Lecen" (from their talk pages, it is evident several are in e-mail contact with Lecen)). I am not asking you to get involved, but simply to keep an eye out, in case attempts to organize protest escalate into harassment or into some other orchestrated format. I know I am hardly one to speak on the issue of making big fusses, and I am hardly impartial in this, but I figured it is probably prudent if another neutral admin just kept an eye out from the start on how this evolves, and you were the first person who came to mind. Apologies in advance for burdening you again with yet another potential headache. Walrasiad (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
RFC at WT:MOS
Hi PBS. I am notifying you of an RFC at WT:MOS because you contributed to the discussion that led to it:
RfC: Internal consistency versus consistency across articles
I have notified all other editors in your situation, in accord with provisions at WP:CANVAS.
Best wishes,
NoeticaTea? 00:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Just a reminder, PBS. Darkfrog is now counting up the numbers of supports and opposes in that RFC. You might want to review the situation.
- NoeticaTea? 05:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Protection for a page
Hi Philip,
The page Talwar is prone to repeated edits from people pushing particularist nationalistic or cultural agendas. I wonder if you could do me a favour and protect it from unregistered editors. I'm getting rather tired of re-editing the page.
Regards Urselius (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Re: How to move a page
I recall using {{Movenotice}} because I had this idea (perhaps incorrect) that {{Requested move}} was for cases in which the editor could not move a page, and required technical assistance to complete it. For what it's worth, that wasn't the case: my intent was to gain consensus for a move, not to obtain assistance. (And for what it's worth, due to lack of caffeine, I have to think about the phrase "not uncontroversial" every time I read it - I keep seeing it as "not controversial." I may or may not have read it this way when I used the template. Couldn't it just say "controversial"? Though that's another discussion.) Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- None taken, and thanks for your efforts, by the way. I did leave a note at Template talk:Movenotice about that template's instructions. Again, though, I wasn't necessarily requesting a move, but requesting a discussion - but now I see that WP:RM covers that as well. So, thanks again. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The entire talk page right now is a discussion of the move. Why did you indicate it had not been discussed?Naraht (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Your addition of a to the Suggested Move section of Talk:Cygnus 1
Hello PBS,
I noticed you formalized the requested move for Cygnus 1. While I understand the usefulness of a formal request, the discussion had no comments for more than two months, with the last comment (mine) indicating we should wait for more information before conducting the move. Additionally, it was not User:Craigboy who suggested that name, it was me. He had suggested the original move (to a different name).
My question to you: Was this just routine formalizing or did you have a reason for it? If so please let us know, as I am a bit confused when it comes to the resurrection of a discussion we had agreed to wait on.
Regards,
--WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 15:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Move notice
Hi PBS you have removed the move-notice in the article Tenedos. But have you realized that the discussion is not over yet ? (see talk page) Although the majority supports the move, attention of an uninvolved editor or an admin was required. I think we still need the move-notice template. Cheers Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Move notices
Apologies, I wasn't aware of the discussion going on about the template. I will have a look at the discussion in more detail later. Del♉sion23 (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
September 2012
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to List of UEFA Cup Winners' Cup winners does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- I physically tagged your talk page with the above template because you are not using edit summaries to explain your actions and simply adding a template back on that article (or any page actually) without adding an edit summary makes it difficult to interpret your intentions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Multi-page edits are no reason for not leaving edit summaries. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thank you very much! I would just like to ask a question. If I create an account will I have the right of not using it, or having-an-account-but-using-IP-instead-without-intending-to-harm is considered shockpuppetry?--94.65.32.228 (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Why to creat an account but not use it?" That's a very good question, indeed. You know, anonimity is good. Anyway, whenever I want to edit from an account (it has happened about ten times) I ask my brother to come home, log in and let me edit. Through this, I reached the conclusion that IP editing is better. Cheers!--94.65.32.228 (talk) 05:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, but we do it once each five months. Trust me it's of no harm. We don't live together.--94.65.32.228 (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
FYI, Move Notice at TFD
I've gone ahead and nominated the Movenotice template for deletion here with some caveats for policy change re its use if not deleted. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Pedro III of Portugal
You just gave a good reason to the very few who has interest on the subject not to care to improve those articles. Neither you nor Qwyrxian helped in any form. In a year from now these articles about Portuguese history will remain the same. In fact, the same as they are since the very beginning of Wikipedia, unlike similar and closed related articles such as Pedro I of Brazil, Pedro II of Brazil and Empire of Brazil. You have both proved to be highly unsuitable for the post you hold. Thanks for not helping at all. --Lecen (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stanislav Vladimirovich Dumin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Close
Is this preferable? The archive template is about the limit of what I can handle... Drmies (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
In case you don't know, there was a talk page response to your revert.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Grainger Ker Thompson, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Marlborough School and D.S.O. (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for those tweaks. It looks really nice now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Vietnamese city diacritic RM
This is one of a group of geography titles IIO moved recently. This notification due to your participation in Talk:My Linh Kauffner (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Edward Massey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to DNB and Lord Goring
- Battle of Worcester (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Theme
- Third English Civil War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Theme
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
article ownership
Hi,
I really appreciated your words on the talk page of the Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. I hope I understood them correctly. I'm struggling to understand, considering the pillars and policies of wikipedia, just where I can post and where I can't. Because I'm a newbie and don't understand that some words like "diva" can't be used (though I see it used all the time), my contributions are demeaned. I'm trying my best. What are the actual rules/policies - since what's written say under the Fourth Pillar, for example, is just not true.
Can you advise me? I'm afraid to continue reviewing GAN's because that will open me up for more attacks. And I have a very poor way of handling attacks. Also, my "rollback" feature doesn't let me leave an edit summary. Is there anything I can do about that? Any help would be appreciated. But if you want to ignore me, because I probably sound like a raving lunatic, that's ok too. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Philip. The name has been changed from the earlier Neve Shalom-Wahat as-Salaam. I and another editor were opposed (unfortunately I was up for a 1R rap at the time discussion on this was to take place). The closing verdict by Jenks was for the change. We discussed this on his page. I remember you discussed this serenely when Tewfik proposed a similar alteration of the name way back in 2006. Jenks has acted absolutely in good faith, and according to his own scrupulous lights. I just think that a stable title was questioned on poor grounds, and when we called for some external community input none was really forthcoming. I won't rehearse the many arguments (WP:NPOV,WP:Systemic bias, the village's own insistance on dual naming in order to exemplify a civil conviviality between two worlds which are otherwise torn apart in that area). I'd just appreciate if you could look over it, and drop an opinion in the new section I'll open. Regards.--Nishidani (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Just stumbled across this as I have PBS's talk page on my watchlist. I appreciate your comments about my actions. Reading over your comment here I realised that in my long-winded response to you earlier I forgot to mention that, as the RM was relatively poorly attended, there should be no prejudice against starting a new RM in the near future. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't want to force anyone, esp. admins to die of boredom by referring them to the wiki essay I wrote for the ARBCOM decision in 2009, which is still on my talk page. But it does provide editors with extensive evidence as to why the naming is a particularly sensitive issue here. Cancelling Arabic names from the landscape was a political-cultural policy in Israel, which that village specifically set out to challenge. That is the gravamen of my reservation. Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- You guys look pretty scurpulous so I'd better save you the trouble of reading my screed. The essence is in the quotation by Ben-Gurion there, i.e., 'We are obliged to remove the Arabic names for reasons of state. Just as we do not recognize the Arabs’ political proprietorship of the land, so also we do not recognize their spiritual proprietorship and their names.'
- I.e. wikipedia usually tries to avoid falling into these traps, the Neve Shalom-Wahat as-Salaam community was acting against this systemic bias in their own area, and I think we should respect their decision, whatever Israeli newspaper evidence is, because it best reflects one of our 5 pillars, and avoids systemic bias. That's it. Regards.Nishidani (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't want to force anyone, esp. admins to die of boredom by referring them to the wiki essay I wrote for the ARBCOM decision in 2009, which is still on my talk page. But it does provide editors with extensive evidence as to why the naming is a particularly sensitive issue here. Cancelling Arabic names from the landscape was a political-cultural policy in Israel, which that village specifically set out to challenge. That is the gravamen of my reservation. Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- I would usually reply on the talk page of the talk initiator of a conversation, but as two editors are involved I am replying here. As an editor my opinion from 2006 has not changed, and I suggest that the article title is returned to Oasis of Peace for the reasons I gave in 2006 (using Liancourt Rock as an example). However my opinion is only that of a disinterested and non-expert reader and not as an administrator. As an administrator I consider the last requested move to have been properly formatted and that the close meets the close criteria in following the AT policy and its guidelines. If that is not your opinion Nishidani, then the new process Wikipedia:Move review is available, but I suggest that most will come to the same conclusion as I have, and it would be seen as gaming the system to initiate a review and then a new move request if that review does not go the way you would like. -- PBS (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Philip. Actually, neither I nor NSH001 initiated a review. The proposal was raised by Number, and was opposed by myself and the other editor. He sought input, and save for one support, no one said anything. So it's not sour grapes at the conclusion. The result was I supporting vote, against the two objections. So, in asking for review, I'm not protesting at a closure I did not like. I am merely saying that 2/2 (and I must apologize to Jenks because circumstances and scruple led me not to formalize the 'oppose' which is clear from my earlier detailed arguments) is no grounds for favouring a change, but rather leaving the article as it was. But, as I readily admit, I know nothing of policy. My strong point is elsewhere, on NPOV and concepts of parity which are notoriously ignored all over this particular area, and not only by one side.Nishidani (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- To be clear on terminology user:Number 57 initiated a requested move that process was closed by Jenks24 who interpreted the result and acted upon it -- Process closed.
- Having asked Jenks24 to review and change that action -- which Jenks24 has declined to do -- you have three alternatives open to you: (1) leave it alone; (2) initiate a Wikipedia:Move review process (of the last requested move); (3) start a new requested move process (as Jenks24 mentioned above). -- PBS (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Philip. Actually, neither I nor NSH001 initiated a review. The proposal was raised by Number, and was opposed by myself and the other editor. He sought input, and save for one support, no one said anything. So it's not sour grapes at the conclusion. The result was I supporting vote, against the two objections. So, in asking for review, I'm not protesting at a closure I did not like. I am merely saying that 2/2 (and I must apologize to Jenks because circumstances and scruple led me not to formalize the 'oppose' which is clear from my earlier detailed arguments) is no grounds for favouring a change, but rather leaving the article as it was. But, as I readily admit, I know nothing of policy. My strong point is elsewhere, on NPOV and concepts of parity which are notoriously ignored all over this particular area, and not only by one side.Nishidani (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- I would usually reply on the talk page of the talk initiator of a conversation, but as two editors are involved I am replying here. As an editor my opinion from 2006 has not changed, and I suggest that the article title is returned to Oasis of Peace for the reasons I gave in 2006 (using Liancourt Rock as an example). However my opinion is only that of a disinterested and non-expert reader and not as an administrator. As an administrator I consider the last requested move to have been properly formatted and that the close meets the close criteria in following the AT policy and its guidelines. If that is not your opinion Nishidani, then the new process Wikipedia:Move review is available, but I suggest that most will come to the same conclusion as I have, and it would be seen as gaming the system to initiate a review and then a new move request if that review does not go the way you would like. -- PBS (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I didn't think I was asking Jenks to change his decision, and certainly abhor the idea that might be entertained that this was forum-shopping. I was just interested in having it clarified. I'm notoriously bad on protocols and policies, and just try to write articles in terms on academic RS and standard academic protocols, hoping they produce encyclopedic material. There's not a shadow of doubt that procedurally he acted with integrity, and the fuck-up is a consequence of my own failure, out of scruple, to formally register my dissent. My premise was, I should abstain, since my views are known, in order that the community thrash this out. There was, effectively no significant community interest. In any case, I think your own original proposal 'Oasis of Peace' perhaps the best solution, on reflection, and will only re-engage on this if someone else decides it merits review. Thanks again to both of you, and sorry for the bother. Nishidani (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Contribution
Hey, PBS. Please help contribute to my WikiProject. This WikiProject is about different cultures. If you can take some time and help contribute to it, that would be very nice of you. I am starting this project this week and would like to finish by next week. Please help me with this project. Thank you very much. Please answer on my talk page because I might not be able to keep track of who is contributing and who is not. I would like you to also share your culture. If you can give me a little summary about your culture such as, foods, lifestlye, holidays, traditions, e.t.c, that would be extremely helpful. Thank you. Pleas reply on MY talk page. Happy edits! Have a great day! DEIDRA C. (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Possible sock of LouisPhilippeCharles
User:Spar-stangled? Because you seem knowledgeable of that banned editor, please comment at this SPI. Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gottfried Huyn von Geleen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bingen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Fair call
Just want you to know I appreciate your thoughtful reasoning in this discussion closing. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Lushai Expedition (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Mulla
- Richard Westmacott (soldier) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to D.S.O.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Re: Raimondo Montecuccoli
Oops, my apologies. My mistake - that's supposed to be p.28, not p.128. I'll fix it. The other one is also a Google Books link - I could try to find an alternate link... let me have a look. Thanks for pointing that out! Stalwart111 22:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- The second one is working for me, even on the iPad. It's a brief mention on p.162 under Smaller-scale conflict. But I will continue to look for a better link. Cheers, and thanks again. Stalwart111 22:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Now for something completely different...
Promise I'm not Wiki-stalking you. Ha ha. This has nothing to do with the above, but User:Enredados just popped up on my Watchlist. I see from his talk page you had some dealings with him in the past. Was it your view that he might have been another sock of User:LouisPhilippeCharles? The edits seem like the same sort of rapid-fire nobility-related changes as the other suspected socks... He's made a string of edits over the last few days - some useful, some not to much. Thoughts? Stalwart111 00:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- That's a cool toy - wasn't aware of it at all. I would say there are other editors with whom I would have a much higher cross-match than you but there are some cool "anomalies" there. I might leave a note for User:FactStraight. Thanks for getting back to me! Cheers, Stalwart111 23:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC).
Hi there. I've not been very active on WP since years, but I would be interested in working around Commons and particularly the specific articles Knowledge commons and Digital commons (economics) which are somehow overlapping or related but seem to have been written with no coordination at all (not even linking to each other). The concepts in this domain are still largely debated and have long been ill-defined or highly biased by different POV, but there are interesting studies going on in this field leading to clarification of concepts. See e.g.,http://p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Governance#Typology. What's amazing is that such concepts underlying the very principle existence of WP are so poorly described in it :) I don't want to start this alone, though. How could I find people interested in a team work on this? Note I talk yo you because of your long comment on the discussion page --universimmedia (talk) 11:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your note on my talk page. I'm now back from travelling and have commented at Template talk:Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley. All the best Andrew Dalby 10:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Eleanor de Braose
Yes - all my citations are from books I have personal access to.
I was thinking of replacing all your references to the Peerage site and Cawley with direct references to the sourcebooks but decided that it was easier for people to see the references at the online sources given, despite the fact that it might lead them to less reliable information at those websites. Doug (at Wiki) 14:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- You repeated "I think you should follow the advice in WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT". I do. As I said I have access to these books and cite what I read.
Disambiguation link notification for November 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roger Fitzmiles, 2nd Earl of Hereford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carlisle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Question re 'stub' banners
Philip, a couple years ago you helped me edit the article Balfour House about an antebellum mansion in Vicksburg, MS and an 1862 Christmas Ball that took place there. I have lately been working on the article Tishomingo State Park. When I started with this one, about a year ago, it consisted of only about a half-dozen sentences and so carried a couple 'stub' banners. I'm hoping that by now I have the article beyond 'stub' status, so I'm wondering to whom I should appeal to have those banners removed. Thanks for any help! Berberry (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National redoubt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montgomery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
re:ANI
I refactored that discussion simply by including the late comment in the close box. Opining that we should spend a month on an ANI wasn't going to be taken seriously, and the discussion was effectively over. 68.156.149.62 (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Refactoring would have been editing your comment, changing its content. All I did was enclose it in the HAT. There was no refactoring. 68.156.149.62 (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- John Reynolds (soldier) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Foy, Carrick, Robert Reynolds, Thomas Morgan and Francis Russell
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
December 15
I have provided an expanded quote from one of the references that I was working from as per your request. Most of the others are not mine, so I can not comment on them. Please see the expanded references on my talk page per your request at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bridgexplorer
To obtain the full text quote for all the authors summarized might be an exhausting task. Was there some particular concern? I believe the synthesis to be accurate, but have not verified the integrity of all authors cited. I am willing to work at it over time. I have much confidence in the source cited as Jared Sparks was an early Harvard University president and avid historian and book collector with an extended collection donated to Harvard, and Charles Whentworth Upham had also an excellent reputation for impartiality. Jared Sparks was also the personal writer of George Washington's only autobiography. I believe he can be trusted with the British Civil Wars as well.
Disambiguation link notification for December 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Robert Reynolds (Attorney General) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Robert Goodwin
- Siege of Drogheda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Steeple
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Re: your threat
Considering your edits, reverting without discussion, and the threat you have just left on my talkpage I am taking the matter to a project talkpage - most likely the MILHIST project. I did not come to edit the wiki to be threatened by an editor who opposes constructive edits.Tempaccount040812 (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have no interest in further discussing the situation with someone who issues threats to get their own way. I have therefore asked the wider community to look into the matter. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, as you say you do, you may reply there.Tempaccount040812 (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- I took a look, and I don't see a threat on that User Talk page. To me it looks more like advice. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Good idea!
Tracking these could be useful and interesting. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
You totally earned this.
|
Thank you very much for your comments at Talk:Synchronous motor. I frankly found the whole discussion very bruising, especially the tone of some of the comments (nevermind the fact that opposing editors were spinning the whole thing as a "them vs. me" matter). I greatly appreciate your willingness to get involved. If there's ever a matter where you feel my expertise might be useful, please don't hesitate to call upon me. Either way, I hope you have a wonderful holiday season! Doniago (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC) |
I hestitate...a lot...to bring this up...but it looks like, with regards to that article...we have editors who are now refusing to permit the removal of unsourced material while also refusing to take any responsibility for sourcing it. I'm wondering whether that behavior merits general administrator attention. If you think it's in any way a good idea, I'm willing to put a notice at WP:ANI, or we can leave it alone for now and see where things go...I'm thinking we're going to need at least one admin involved to close the RFC at this rate in any case. Please let me know your thoughts on the matter since you seem to be one of the few other editors who's not only willing to call attention to the problem but stay actively involved with trying to resolve it. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Wholesale reverting
Per your RfC, please stop the wholesale reverting at the plagiarism page. It's very frustrating because it means if you don't like one thing, you change everything, and therefore no progress is made. Please undo your last revert and make whatever single change you wanted, but leave the rest. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Frohe Weihnachten - 2012
Christmas Greetings. Kierzek (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- I hate to do this, but... non-free image removed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Mercat Cross, Edinburgh
Re your message about the above. You're right to question whether the Drum Estate Monument is a replica. That was an assumption on my part based on the probability that the monument resembles the reconstructed cross it replaced. In the absence of confirmatory evidence it would be better if the word was left out. On the second question, I can't recall exactly where I read that information, but here's a source which heavily implies it without actually stating that the money came out of his own pocket. Canmore. RCAHMS is ultra-cautious in not making claims that can't be backed up by documentary evidence, so I think their statements can be regarded as reliable. One could change the main text to say only that Gladstone 'arranged' the restoration, but I think that sounds too vague. RCAHMS states that the initiative was William Chambers', but that Gladstone arranged it and handed over the key. I can't see why they'd say that if he hadn't financed it somehow (whether personally or by inviting subscriptions). Kim Traynor (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- Here's another source which states that it was done at his own expense. Gladstone I note from googling that most sites accord Chambers no recognition and falsely credit Gladstone with instigating the restoration. Kim Traynor (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I'll cite Britannica since that states the idea more directly. Here's a pic I took of the monument. The shaft was rebuilt at the Drum, but I'm slightly suspicious of the finial which is clearly a representation of the style of cross from the burgh arms of the Canongate. I assume that's because Edinburgh was granted burgh status in the Holyrood Abbey charter c.1143, but this type of finial would certainly not have been used after the Reformation, suggesting that the monument is not a replica of the post-Reformation cross (which would have likely had the royal unicorn for a royal burgh), more an 18thC antiquarian's/mediaevalist's fantasy. Kim Traynor (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- Point to consider. At present it looks as if the 1365 source records the precise distance of the cross from St. Giles which surely can't be the case? If that were known so precisely, it seems to contradict the uncertainty expressed earlier in the text about it either being on or very near the original site. Kim Traynor (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've placed the Britannica reference within the text, but am not familiar with the formatting style used. Could you do an edit tweak to bring it into line with the format of the other references, so that it displays properly? Kim Traynor (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Grand Convention
Just because you have A source that uses "Grand Convention" does NOT disprove my point in any way; I never doubted there was SOME source out there that called it the "Grand Convention". My point was, most Americans would scratch their heads if you asked them what the "Grand Convention" was; though it may be more proper in British English where "constitutional convention" has a completely different meaning, I doubt most non-American English speakers would know what the "Grand Convention" was either. Though the article is on a British topic, that section clearly refers to its impact on the "Colonies"; thus in context it's clearer to refer to the American Convention by its American English name (capitalized, both in proper usage and to disambiguate from the British concept) than an obscure British English term. --RBBrittain (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harriet Sutherland-Leveson-Gower, Duchess of Sutherland, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Whigs and Trentham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Wholesale reverting again
Please stop reverting every edit I make regarding in-text attribution. You've been doing it for years, and I'm really tired of it. Make changes by all means, but no more wholesale reversions just because you personally disagree. The policies and guidelines are meant to reflect community consensus and best practice. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- I would be interested to know if these two comments you have made here are part of an ambush technique you are setting up to use against me in the future as you have done in the past. Instead of commenting here in the way that you do, I usually use the talk page of that page that has been altered and I try to stick to the changes in the text rather than making accusations based on my own opinions of he other editor. In this case I posted to the talk page immediately after the changes that I reverted, with explanations for the alterations. The type of posting you have made here is an attack against me personally and you are an experience enough editor to know that it is counter productive. If I were to follow the same strategy I could have put a message like this:
- "Please stop making large edits to guideline pages without first discussing the changes first.You've been doing it for years, and I'm really tired of it. Make incremental changes by all means, but no more wholesale changes just because you personally disagree with the current content. The policies and guidelines are meant to reflect community consensus and best practice."
- but I think that it would be counter productive and does not help build a consensus. Given that I made these edits [10] [11], an hour before you posted here explaining my revert. Why did you think it necessary to make this post? -- PBS (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry
I didn't mean to imply that you signed the article at the top on purpose. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Cameron Clearances References
Thank you for tidying up the references in the section I added on the Clan Cameron#Highland Clearances in the Clan Cameron page.
You marked reference 32 as needing a better source. The current source is part of a web site that I put together about my father's family history, so I understand that is not a satisfactory source according to Wikipedia standards. However, the article that it contains on the Cameron clearances contains more details on those clearances which I thought may be of general interest - and I did attempt to back up that article with sources up to Wikipedia standards.
Assuming that you agree that the more detailed information on the Cameron Clearances contained on my website is adequately sourced and might be of general interest, what would be the best way (if any) of referring a reader of this Wikipedia page to that information. Camerojo (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Feedback
Thanks for your feedback. I understand what you propose and the example you referred me to. However, it does not really seem to fit my particular case. I put the reference where I did because it was an example of one descendant of those Camerons cleared from their ancestral land. However, it is really only of general interest because of the extra information on the Cameron clearances. I can see that you might not want everybody posting links to their family histories there. (On the other hand, might that not be interesting and appropriate in a dedicated section of the Clan page? I would certainly find it interesting).
Anyway, I am happy to remove the reference to my website altogether but that seems a shame since it does provide more detailed information on the Cameron Clearances - but probably too much detail to include into the Clan Cameron page itself. That is why I included just a summary in the first place. Maybe I could just add a link in the External Links section with a note explaining that the link provides more details on the Cameron clearances? Sorry to bother you again - I will follow whatever your advice might be on this. Camerojo (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Highland Fencible Corps (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Elgin, Kells and Carlton House
- Elizabeth Gordon, Duchess of Gordon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Free church of Scotland
- James Loch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Whigs
- John Macleod of Colbecks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Elgin
- List of acronyms and initialisms: D (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to DVP
- Robert Bruce Aeneas Macleod (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Roderick Macleod
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Good night, PBS
About this, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beatrice_of_Portugal&diff=506914577&oldid=499453335, it's impossible, in this moment (05/01/2013), to find a better source to the question than Charles Cawley. He is, for the moment, and for this particular issue, the better european source. On his text about the question he gave all the sources for the conclusions he took (and also there are no more ancient sources, only those that he referred). Salut, Jorge alo (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
More tarring, feathering, and lynching
here (under "Proposal for topic ban for Apteva"). The usual suspects: SMcCandlish & Black Kite. Started with threats on my talk page. Note also the Template reply post (more of the usual canvassing and cronyism evident here). Thank you for your efforts to keep WP reasonably fair, civil, and neutral. LittleBen (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Re:Separation of Powers in constitution?
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.