User talk:PBS/Archive 8

Eritrean-Ethiopian War

Hey there PBS. In the edit notes you suggested that there was not more than one front, however, in your edit you said that the EIJ/EIS and the OLF were included. These would be two different fronts as one conducts actions in Oromia and the other in Gash-Barka...How do you respond? Would it not be multiple fronts? --Merhawie 17:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends what one means by fronts. For example the commando raids on Norway are not usually seen as part of the Western Front, nor for that matter are the strategic bombing campaigns of World War II. Although the word has a metaphorical meaning, I do not think that that is an appropriate in an article about a war. Regards Philip Baird Shearer 17:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

PBS...that is a very good point...do you have any recommendations though? Because as it stands now the title is simply incorrect. --Merhawie 18:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I used the sub-secton header "Fighting Spreads to Somalia" because it was the one used in the first reference. But after you edit, I decided that sub-section title Fighting in Somalia probably fitted the parent section (War) better. What is it that you think is incorrect about it? --Philip Baird Shearer 22:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well the section specifically talks about the involvement of the EIJ and the EIS and these groups do not (at least to my knowledge) operate in Somalia, the Oromia or anywhere but Eastern Sudan and Western Eritrea. Because of this I think the section title is inaccurate. --Merhawie 22:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

World Statesman site

Please share your thoughts with me wheter this site - http://www.worldstatesmen.org - is a WP:RS. Thank you,--Velimir85 17:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Cross of Sacrifice.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cross of Sacrifice.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Strangerer (Talk) 09:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• It says {{GFDL}}, but it doesn't state the source of the image. Who released it as GDFL? --Strangerer (Talk) 10:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• I tagged it because it wasn't clear who had created the image or where it had come from. Someone else could have created it and released it under GDFL; then if you upload it and just use {{GDFL}} with no other information, it's not really clear who the author is. Apparently you are the creator? The page doesn't give any information about it. I'll go ahead and replace it with {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} for you. --Strangerer (Talk) 10:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

Do you know what on earth has happened here?

• [1]

The summary says that the deletion was made by User:Conscious, but that Admin has not made a contribution since the 5th May. --Mais oui! 18:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It did not shown up in my Watchlist. I only noticed it because I happened to click on the direct link, and got the "article does not exist" screen, as I would if it had been a redlink. --Mais oui! 18:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Portal: Genocide

No, i don't Ashkani. Thanks for the warm welcome too. I would like to further discuss the Portal: Genocide topic though. Amerihay 22:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

River Teme

You helped me last summer deal with views on the navigability of the River Teme, which are unsupported by any firm historical evidence, and seem ultimately to derive from one Andy Mabbett (possibly misspelt), who subsequently became a blocked user. The same sort of assertions have reappeared in the article. Could I ask you to watch the article and act as referee? My 2006 article remains unrefuted. The fact that various older works (and formner webpages) mention the alternative view should not make them right. Nevertheless, as the author of the latest major article, it is not necessarily easy for me to be objective. Peterkingiron 22:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Jvalant/Indian Rebellion

Greetings,

I'm considering whether to take Jvalant to the ArbCom on the Indian Rebellion page. You seem to have been dealing with the page for far longer than I have, so I was wondering you had any thoughts on the matter. --RaiderAspect 11:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully the 3RR report will result in an improvement in behaviour. And yes, it's odd really; many of Wikipedia's most ardent nationalists don't seem to live in the nation they defend to the death. --RaiderAspect 12:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:Unreferenced

Looks like you are getting ready to do a big archive move on Template talk:Unreferenced. If/when you do would you drop me note (in case I miss the move) I would like to do a review and write up on the contently reoccurring none verses one reference argument and provide links to the archived talks. Actually I will probably start on review in my sandbox this weekend as I just finished the section I was working on there. Jeepday (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Peninsular War

Your shameless rules lawyering is extremely unwelcome and unappreciated. I know 3R very well and I rate it accordingly. So you can continue to invoke 3R with all due posturing and mock innocence, but a far graver case rests against those who force through foolish edits using bad etiquette and manipulation of Wikipedia guidelines. If you felt the slightest confidence in your justification for your edits, in the strength of your case when exposed to the scrutiny of honest discussion, or in your experience with the recent historiography of the Peninsular War, then you would present arguments instead of entrenching yourself behind 3R.

In brief: Have I any reason not to dismiss your would-be edit warring as the disruptive project of an awkward ingenue? Let's hear you justify yourself. Do you deny that a sizeable number of present-day English-language historians and scholarly publications (Esdaile, Gates, Britannica, Revolutionary Spain) employ the term? Is it not enough that Spanish War of Independence is used in the German, French, Italian, and Hungarian wikis (besides Castilian and other Spanish dialects)? Do you suppose you have any precedent for burying alternate names in footnotes? (go ahead, pick articles at random: Seven Years' War, Austro-Prussian War, War of the Grand Alliance, etc., you'll find a glaring rebuke in each) Of course, no one denies that "Peninsular War" is the most common English name; that's why the article sits where is does. But to try to pretend it's the only name is palpably narrow-minded and counterproductive. Albrecht 03:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

When you have time, please set out your terms for further discussion or resolution of the naming dispute. I am also prepared to address any remaining concerns you have with the second paragraph. You may reply on my talk page if you prefer. Albrecht 01:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to resolving the naming issue. Do you want to refer the matter to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Napoleonic era task force, or are you prepared to reach a solution on the talk page? Let me know your thoughts. Albrecht 18:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm almost amazed that you can speak of protecting the "flow" when the introduction begins like this:

“ The Peninsular War was a war in the Iberian Peninsula. An alliance of Spain, Portugal, and the United Kingdom battled the French Empire during the Napoleonic Wars. The... ”

I'd say choppiness is the main issue at present, which the addition of an extra name or two could hardly exacerbate. I have considered your suggestion of putting the names in a separate paragraph but I can't find a place that sits well; having the reader pause to read a paragraph exclusively on the names seems like an unforgivable interruption, especially in the introduction, where space is so precious. You may be right, though, about the removal of parenthetical translations (i.e. Spanish War of Independence (Guerre de la independencia espanola)); like you said, the interested reader can simply consult the non-English wiki of his choice.

For the moment, I would propose something like this (the precise phrasing can be subject to considerable revision):

“ The Peninsular War or Spanish War of Independence was a Napoleonic war in the Iberian Peninsula that involved an alliance of Spain, Portugal, and the United Kingdom against the French Empire. The... ”

I'm not particularly concerned about Guerre d'Espagne as it seems to be a fairly unassuming term applied to any conflict in Spain—and mainly the Spanish Civil War. I can find another place. The Portuguese name, meanwhile, can be used in "Consequences in Portugal," which should please everybody. But I remain convinced in my case for Spanish War of Independence. Again, you have my assurance that in no circumstance would I approve of additional names entering the introduction. Albrecht 21:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent point in principle, except Wikipedia does not operate this way: We name pages in line with the most common English name, but we consider contents based on global importance. Concerning wars specifically, I am not aware of any rule that a foreign name has to be anywhere near as common as the English one before we put it in bold; judging by the examples I showed you before, editors consistently have been very liberal. For example, "Second Italian War of Independence" (-wikipedia) occurs on Google only 547 times, "la invasión estadounidense de mexico" only twice, "Saskatchewan Rebellion" only 770, "Saltpeter War" 291/64,400 (proportion to main name), "Nationalist-Communist Civil War" 78/116,000, "Second Moroccan War" 59, "Rebellion of Great Peace" 2/110,000, "Charles VIII's Italian War" 6/68,000, "Fourth Arab-Israeli War" 1,860/365,000, "Third Italian Independence War" 135/36,000. In brief, you're holding this article to standards that clearly are not in force anywhere else. Albrecht 22:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

?

Who are you and what is your purpous? I do not in any way wish to sound rude, but you should at the very least have the good will of letting us know what your intentions are. Ancient Land of Bosoni

Bosnian Muslims

About "Bosnian Muslims", it's a lost cause. "Bosnian Muslims" is a perfectly legitimate mainstream alternative to "Bosniacs/Bosniaks"; one can find it in the encyclopedias Encarta, Britannica, Columbia... This issue is basically as follows: a distinct identity in Bosnia came about with the mass conversions of Serbs and Croats to Islam. These people were known since then until the 1990s as "Bosnian Muslims", when Bosnia and Herzegovina became independent. Since then, the term "Bosnian Muslims" has been suppressed and the neologism "Bosniacs/Bosniaks" (as distinct from Bosnians) came about and it has become politically correct to refer to them with the neologism now. Bosnian Muslim/Bosniac/Bosniak historians claim that Bosniacs/Bosniaks have always existed, and have rewritten history back to the middle ages to make room for their ethnic group and the medieval self-identifying Serb rulers of Bosnia are declared proud Bosniacs/Bosniaks by them. For what mainstream experts think, see what I wrote here. For the greatest propagandistic version of the history of Bosnia, see here and the heading of this talkpage. The suppression of the term "Bosnian Muslim" in favor of "Bosniacs/Bosniaks" is promoted on Wikipedia by Bosniac/Bosniak users themselves and users who support "human rights" and "political correctness", despite the fact that the neologism hasn't yet caught one in English (mostly because most people unrelated to Yugoslavia aren't familiar yet with the new name - they were referred to as (Bosnian) "Muslims" officially under communist Yugoslavia). As far as I can tell, there's no chance we're winning this argument - the majority rules in edit wars. Welcome to the nationalist swamps of Wikipedia where the The Law of the Jungle prevails :) --Ploutarchos 21:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda, probably from a Serb or a very uneducated English (who believes to know everything), anyway propaganda. Ancient Land of Bosoni

Dokdo/Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks

Endroit mentioned on AN/I that you stepped in about the last time the naming monster raised its head on this page (he said something about you suggesting a new poll six months after the previous one ended due to the extreme response that poll had). Almost a year later, people have finally got the spirit to raise the issue in discussion. So far everything has remained more or less civil, and no move wars have broken out (what luck). We're in the RFC stage now, maybe you would have some input or suggestion?

The main issue is whether or not we can stick with a single name out of the dispute when neither is more widely used. Then there is the issue of whether either of the local names should be considered English. If not, there is a less-used standard English name (what Google maps, treaties, etc. use). Anyway, I don't want to push my own ideas too much, just suggest you take a look and perhaps offer some guidance. --Cheers, Komdori 00:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to second that. The main thing is that any 'votes' are based on policy, and if we have to resort to Google counts it's based on a fair one. I don't want to say what this one would throw up but the last vote allowed a search of non-English pages and adding together of separate searches which is completely flawed. I just want to see a fair count. (Don't like slashes either). Thanks. Macgruder 18:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Genocide...

I'll get back to you soon. Will update text per the books involved.--Carwil 22:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Witch hunt perhaps

I am to say the least very concerned with your edits, to me it undoubtly seems like something of a witch hunt for the Bosniak people. I am not accusing you, but much of your retorics remind me of nationalistic serbian ones. And you'd be surprised how many serbs "hide" under an english name when editing, I suppose to "earn credibility" since the "whole" world wrongly believes the english to be "the only good ones". So if you feel that I accuse you of propaganda (rather than lack of knowledge) it is because I suspect nationalistic vibes, unfortunately. But as long as you will continue to deny the Bosniak people in order to claim Bosniak land on the behalf of Croats and Serbs, your edits will not be approved. Reminder: It is not very cultural to avoid discussions on wikipedia. Regards Ancient Land of Bosoni

WP:NOR

You know, all the comments at Talk:Holocaust_denial#Original_research_regarding_.22Holocaust_revisionist.22 about your edits being original research are indeed accurate, it was original research. Please read WP:NOR. Adding original research to articles on hot-button, controversial topics then make a dogged talk page stand when called on it is a sure-fire way to earn the community's distrust and exhaust its good will. You may want to consider this and rethink your method of contributing to the project. FeloniousMonk 04:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent attacks by "user: Philip Baird Shearer" and others

I posted you this message on the Bosniaks talk page

In recent days, user "Philip Baird Shearer" has been questioning the "term Bosniak", as he calls it. First off, Bosniak is not a "term" nor is it a "recently constructed name" - Bosniak (and Bosnia) have historical land founding roots back to the early middle ages. BOSNIAK is a historic ethnic designation for people who stem from Bosnia. User "Philip Baird Shearer" has however been insisting on the highly inappropriate term "Bosnian Muslims", note: this is (in contrast to Bosniak) truly a TERM and not a historic NAME/ethnicity. This term came about in the 60's during a period when Yugoslavia and Bosnia were heavily dominated by serb/croat nationalist interests. The nationalist and communist serb and croat officials frankly denied Bosniaks as a people, despite that this people is the first one recorded to inhabit the Bosnian state, if you read the article you will see that BOSNJANI (Bosniaks, in old Bosnian language) are the first recorded people of modern Bosnia. And if you further read the 'Bosnians article' you will see that bosnian croat and serb nationalities didn't exist in Bosnia prior to the 19th century. Now "Bosnian Muslims" is an inappropriate term that the west ADOPTED from communist Yugoslavia, despite that this state was not based on human rights - the way the west handles and handled Bosnia is a disappointment of great magnitude, compare for example how the kurds in turkey were called "mountain turks" by turkish officials, I haven't however yet seen any western media use this designation. What I am trying to say is, Bosniaks are a people/ethnic group that are defined by the fact that Bosnia is their motherland and their common language is Bosnian - and NOT that their majority religion happeneds to be Islam -Bosniaks have existed even prior to Islam, as any normal humanbeing could suspect (see Bosnian church). And still one should not forget that Bosniak (and Bosnian language) is a name that is protected by the Bosnian constitution and international law. The fact that MEDIA uses a false term is no reason to call it appropriate - media is famous for missguiding people and facts. User philip baird shearer says that none of his friends nor he knew about bosniaks until he read wikipedia - well Philip, we live in a time when Bosniaks almost became extinct - something which was prepared for already in the sixties by giving Bosniaks the name "Muslims" in order to undermine them as a distinct people and instead designate them as merely a religious group. Politics aren't simply black or white, remember that. Nor is it a good characteristic to be morally equivavelent all of the time, sometimes neutrality automatically serves the purpous of the perpetrator. In the future you should double check all the Bosnian facts that you might hear from croat or serb users, I have noticed that you enjoy to engage in discussions with these people. Ancient Land of Bosoni

Do not be intimidated by these or similar posts of Bosnian Muslim nationalists. You have every right to make your own oppinion, and I'll inform you that term Bosniak was practically forgotten until the beggining of the war, when muslim nationalists started using it again in an attempt to create a nation for their new state. For a vast period of preceding time, inhabitants of Bosnia were simply called Bosnians, and it was known wheter someone was Serb, Croat or Muslim. --Velimir85 19:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of data

Hey Philip, could you tell me why you removed the data? I don't think the fact that the data is duplicate justifies anything. In many previous disputes, whenever there was an archival session, I restored data back to the talk page & no admins said anything about it. I think that restoring the archive has many practical pros. For example, I doubt that most people read the archives when they vote (probably out of laziness), and they pour out their own personal theories & dogmas. But if they see the data, then they know what to vote on. Don't you think so? Also, are you an admin? (Wikimachine 19:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

Never mind. I didn't read your explanation. (Wikimachine 19:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

Tags: Most maintenance templates should be placed on the talk page

Wikipedia:Template standardisation/article

Phillip, I saw a post that you made over at Template talk:Cleanup last February. I couldn't agree more, and have been inspired by an essay I read on tags, which I hope you will read. Lately, you may have noticed the trend towards using a small icon, instead of a big gaudy tag, on sp pages. Well, User:Notmyhandle has created a similar small icon for articles needing cleanup. You can see this new small tag here. Please take a look, and if you like it, leave a supporting note on the Template talk:Cleanup page, where he has introduced it. Unschool 14:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

rv of Dokdo

I don't like you constantly removing my recalls of previous debates that I assume as unfinished & you know well that it's completely right for me to do so. If you keep this on, I'll bring this onto admins and other editors for their opinions. (Wikimachine 23:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

If you revert without discussing with me first, I'll see this as act of aggression & call on other admins & fellow editors for support. (Wikimachine 23:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

You don't reply, but your rever. Double bind: Either you purposely refuse to reply in order to shut the opposition completley, or you are not active and I can revert - to which you will not revert.

I doubt that the article will be moved back, but feel free to present information about meat/sockpuppeting on the Liancourt Rocks side says Husond. Now, do you understand? (Wikimachine 23:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

And you won't. I'll make sure that Husond & Visviva step up to stop this revert war that you're declaring. (Wikimachine 23:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

Wikimachine, you pointed me here and apparently you decided to make good on your threat [2]. I'd like to suggest you try to move forward on the article in question. I came here to thank Philip for at least trying to make some positive changes to the article and get it moving so something can develop besides the naming issue, saw this section and wanted to work my thanks into it (thanks Philip). Continuous posting on the name issue forever is going to result in a stall of virtually all progress on the article and almost certainly won't result in you gaining a consensus for your name. Apparently he's trying to avoid this disruption. —LactoseTI^T 23:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

But I don't see the move as final, and this is not a disruption. I will not let you stop me. (Wikimachine 23:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

What does that redirect answer? (Wikimachine 23:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

I don't want to get into an argument on another user's talk page, but an "I will not let you stop me" attitude is kind of indicative of "disruption." —LactoseTI^T 23:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

When the opposing party has clearly indicated that he will revert my future edits, I see my response as very moderate & controlled. (Wikimachine 23:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

So stop disrupting things; do it on your userspace if you want. No one is stopping you. The conclusion is made on the move, no one is stopping you from talking to other admins for more opinions, setting up this data on your userspace, etc. Just let editors make progress with the article at the same time. —LactoseTI^T 23:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be one of those cases where a normally calming archive operation is instead percieved as taking sides and stifling debate. Philip, I agree with you in principle, but Wikimachine's going to have this discussion if he wants to. The article talk page is arguably the right place for it. Past a certain level of controversy, attempts to short-circuit giving the community its time and space to argue it all out (pointless or not) are counterproductive. The discussion has to happen for people to feel it's over and move past it. I recommend just leaving Wikimachine be and letting him have it (subject to usual NPA and CIVIL and so forth...). Georgewilliamherbert 00:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikimachine can discuss all that (s)he wants to discuss on the talk page. But Wikimachine has a tendency to copy over such large chunks from the archives,[3] [4] when a simple link will do. The problem is that it makes it difficult for people to check the edit history (for what people wrote) when large chunks are cut and pasted and it means that pages quickly reach their 32k limit and need archiving with upto 1/3 or more of the text already in an archive. In this case I have archived the talk page twice in 24 hours because it grew to over 200KB on both occasions. I'll let you draw your own conclusions over my actions in archiving the talk page after both the initial decision and the reconsideration. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have archived a large chunk of stuff he was actively working on today. Pages growing large should not automatically mean that we archive them - we archive when discussions are stale. Archiving twice in 24 hrs IS a problem...

This is not support for people generating 200k of content a day in one talk page. But if it happens, let it alone for long enough to reach its end point... Georgewilliamherbert 00:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 11

I know it's not common to ask for a change of the archieve, but I did change it to at least reflect the fact that the allegations of sockpuppetry were not true. At the point after a long battle to prove those charges false, that's all I ask. I realize it does nothing to change the outcome, but at least makes me feel like I was heard instead of being invalidated because of trumped up false charges. Anyway, I'd appreciate if you'd let it be. Davidpdx 05:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Genocide in China

Please see the talk page in Genocides in history.Editingman 05:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sabra and Shatila

That sounds perfect for me. Thank you for your good job.
With so much emphase on the "official" point of view, maybe -if there exist- some comments from Palestinian officials (to have the "victims" point of view) would definitely close the case.
But personnally, I never found them.
Regards, Alithien 07:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I found this.

In the lawsuit against Ariel Sharon, the "victims" added the "crime of genocide" against Ariel Sharon (See official documents on this website). So, from their point of view, there has been a genocide. I think this has to be mentioned too.

Could you help ? Thank you ! Alithien 08:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Diggers, etc.

Thank you for the excellent work you've done with page moves and disambiguation on the articles relating to the Diggers. It is greatly appreciated. After your page move on Diggers, I went to the redirect page, checked the list of articles that linked thereto, and altered all the articles (I did not touch talk pages of any kind) in order to avoid the redirect. Little by little, this sort of sorting out and cleaning up will continue. Thanks again. ---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá<;/font> 05:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Another Warning

You have been engaging in an edit war on First War of Indian Independence to push your POV, having little regard to building a consensus and have not been following Wikipedia policies. You may have emotional attachment to your nation/heritage but that does not entitle you to sweep noted historical facts under the carpet. Nor does it give you a Carte Blanche to use obscure non-scholastic sources to push your POV. You have been warned.

Please read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, Wikipedia:Requests for comment and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct.

I also urge you to read Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not, Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal" and Wikipedia:Assume good faith, to see that you have been rightly pointed out as a vandal as you have continuously vandalized First War of Indian Independence

Jvalant 08:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That complicated mess...

Hi there. I see you performed a move over a redirect back in February, following the discussion at what is now Talk:Wizard (fantasy). Just wanted to check if you had any insights into the rest of the long, long discussions on that talk pages, and the half-hearted attempt I made here to try and understand the history of the mergers, moves and so on. Carcharoth 10:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Whois on IP user's talk page

I'm just curious (no sarcasm), why did you add a WHOIS to User talk:89.102.140.194? From what I've seen (only checked a few edits of him, especially on my watched articles) this user has made a few controversial edits, but seems to be a good-faith editor. If there's no real problem I'd beg you to put it in chronological order and add some context, because these things can really scare away new users. If I have overlooked something, please leave me a short notice here. Thanks. Malc82 20:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, my bad. Malc82 21:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Combatants merger

Hi Philip, I agree with the merger of the articles mention at Talk:Unlawful enemy combatant. I have also suggested we combine some other articles too so you might want to take a look at the page. Thanks for your work. JodyB _talk 13:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your notice at Sinmiyangyo. I left a reply supporting the Korean Expedition of 1871 (if I had to choose between those 2). (Wikimachine 16:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC))

Randyreporter

Thanks for the heads up. I actually don't think it's the same person (although it might be). I'm pretty certain that Randyreporter is a user that I know from another forum. He may be the same person as EthioFreedom or MarkSwansonReporter, who have all similar interests, names, and editing styles. For IPs, you can see the two I listed at WP:ANI/3RR. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 22:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for taking care of the move of Korean Expedition of 1871 and for keeping your head cool in the debate. I have absolutely no idea why the suggestion of such a trivial move provoked so much hostility, especially since the outcome was more or less given. Anyway, I decided to take a back seat since my presence in the discussion only seemed to exacerbate the deadlock. Tomorrow I will leave and I will behind the Great Firewall for most of the summer, so I don't expect that I will be able to edit on a regular basis. Thanks again!--Amban 15:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of French genocide against Algerians

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Accusations of French genocide against Algerians. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Bleh999 14:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I am surprised by your deletion here. You can't say you didn't know the article changed since its deletion, more than a year ago, since you edited the talk page last November. You really should have brought it to AFD instead of deleting it as you did. I don't think that page is perfect, and I wouldn't cry too long if it was deleted after the community discussed it. I was not around at the time of the first deletion, but If I remember well (I don't want to be near the undelete button since I am involved) it has been massively rewritten during the last year. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You yourself have broken the 3rr rule in response to m yedits, while also blanking all my edits without reason which is againt Wikipedis' views. Choose and explain waht u disagree with althoug hmy edits were fine, so buzz off. 69.157.101.194 18:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

mercenaries

You completely fail to understand what a mercenary is. It is a soldier fighting primarily for profit. that is not a legal situation, it does not depend on POW treatment, it does not depend on oaths to the queen, it depends on whether a mercenary is working for profit. As far as sources go, the basic defintion the Oxford English Dictionary gives for a mercenary is very wide, "a soldier paid to serve in a foreign army or other military organization", which does, without any doubt whatsoever, include Ghurkhas and Legionaries. You surely cannot attempt to disagree with the OED, or claim the OED is "contentious", so as far as i am concerned the matter is now closed. Mesoso2 22:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Belligero

I note you have accused Belligero of making copyvio's at "Genocides in history". He also made a long post at the Stalin page today that appeared to be a barely disguised rewrite of some academic papers on the net. I therefore suspect this may be some sort of MO on his part.

I haven't said anything to him yet, but if he does it again I will give him a warning. Might be an idea to keep an eye on his edits with that in mind. Regards, Gatoclass 04:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much Phillip, that will at least save me some work for the next couple of days :) Gatoclass 15:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I blocked them the first time after I reverted the infringements, warned them and then saw them reverting my chages and adding the infringements back again. I get the feeling they don't listen too well. They seem to be building themselves up into a rage over your block and using the term genocide in its proper sense. If you have any problems in the future with this person, please get in touch and I will deal with it for you. TimVickers 18:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Regicide

Perhaps you would be interested in my comments on the Regicide discussion page. --Counter-revolutionary 14:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

100 days

I am asking editors that I know and trust to help me rewrite 100 days, God its awful! I can sure use you! Tirronan 01:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Moscow Treaty (1880)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Moscow Treaty (1880), by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Moscow Treaty (1880) is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Moscow Treaty (1880), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Moscow Treaty (1880) itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 09:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Philip, I am doing a big clean up of redirected pages that go to deleted pages that were deleted as CSD, prod or AfD. It seems that the bot is not quite smart enough to realise that this is probably a non issue! GB 09:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Tibet

Can I says USA occupied Texas and Hawaii?

• For the point of view of Tibet Movement Activists, Tibet is occupied by China, but Tibet is definitely historical part of China.
• I edit Hawaii and Texas as Military occupation, but reverted by Western viewpoint editor! To Chinese, we can say Hawaii and Texas are occupied by USA.
• Don't show your Western double standard. Here is not Western Wiki.user:198.155.145.88

Actually, that's a mistake. The anon put that comment there, and I accidentally rolled it back off and then rolled it back on again. Those are the words of the anon.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Torture, survey info, disproved sentence removal.

Regarding your edits to Torture; The survey info was specifically added to counterprove the previous sentence "Nevertheless in the 21^st Century torture is almost universally considered to be an extreme violation of human rights," which is literally contradicted by the survey info. So if this survey information is going to be moved then the sentence it was ment to counterprove will have to be removed from the artical in its' entirety. You do not need to take any action as I have already removed the offending sentence from the artical.

It saddens me that I must now consider 29% of the world population the 'enemy'. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 07:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

First recorded genocide

• ;-) Alithien 10:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

? --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 22:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Étienne Maurice Gérard

I gave reverted your links on the Étienne Maurice Gérard article. Those two corps was formed ad hoc and dissolved when the war was over, for those it is best to use the name of the parent army, for exmaple: III Corps (Grande Armée). The first permanent corps in the French Army was formed after the Franco-Prussian War and fought in World War I and II and was active during the Cold War, for example: III Corps (France). Carl Logan 19:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I have seen that you read my post, but I am not sure you fully understod my point. During the Napoleonic Wars there was a number of French armies and many of them had a I Corps. There wasn’t one I Corps but several and they were disbanded when the campaign was over and the crosp HQ dissolved. After 1870 the French Army created permanent corps, there was only one I Corps, one II Corps and so on, each with a permanent corps HQ, even during peacetime. Carl Logan 16:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oka Crisis

You're right, I shouldn't have responded that way, and I realized it fairly quickly, which is why I switched to the Talk page. I know I should assume good faith, but his first two edits involved removing a perfectly relevant link from one page, and a referenced sentence from another, then he made a bunch of inflammatory edits and comments on the oka crisis page. Not exactly the best way to get people to take you seriously... - TheMightyQuill 19:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Bosnian Genocide

Hi, left a reply to your reply on the Bosnian Genocide talk page. Hope I get my point accross more clearly than last. CheersOsli73 23:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Trench warfare up for review

Trench warfare has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Konstable 14:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank for the help.

Your message was a big help Philip. I'm new to wikipedia and I feel a bit like a bull in a china shop right now. Thanks for the assistance.

Julian Watson 03:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Julian Watson

Steeplechase

Hi Philip, you recently moved Steeplechase (horse racing) to steeplechase with the explanation that it is the "primary meaning". Having done my share of dab corrections for this article and looking at Special:Whatlinkshere/Steeplechase (athletics) in comparison with Special:Whatlinkshere/Steeplechase (horse racing) I'd say the number of uses for those two meanings is about the same. WP:DAB#Primary topic then to me seems to indicate there is no primary topic in this case. Anything I overlooked? --S.K. 17:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The primary meaning of steeplechase is horse racing. The OED says:

1. A horse-race across country or on a made course with artificial fences, water-jumps, and other obstacles. Formerly, a race having a church steeple in view as goal, in which all intervening obstacles had to be cleared.

2. transf. A foot-race across country or over a course furnished with hurdles, ditches, and other obstacles.

--Philip Baird Shearer 17:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that I did not change the ordering when I created the Hurdling (disambiguation) even though the OED say that the original meaning for hurdle-race is the horse racing type, because I suspect that the most common meaning would be athletics. (Google supports that by about the same as it does steeplechasing the other way) --Philip Baird Shearer 17:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Lets keep the discussion on one page.

I'm not questioning that the horse race is the original meaning, only that I think nowadays it is no longer the primary one. And if I look at Google, I get 462,000 hits for "Steeplechase horse" versus 383,000 for "Steeplechase athletics". Not that overwhelming a difference, in line with the Wikipedia usage, as far as I can see. --S.K. 18:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is a discussion of angels on pin heads. The original meannig and the common usage in this case is the same. Common usage is the reason that I did not bother to change hurdling which is in about the same ratio the other way around and why hurdling now has a "see hurdling (disambiguation)" at the top of the article (I was supprised one did not already exist. If the Steeplechase (athletics) had been at steeplechase then I would probably not have bothered (and would have put a "see disambiguation" at the top if one did not exist) or I might have put in a WP:RM and discussed this situation in a requested move. But as it was a disambiguation page I see no harm in the move as it does not effect the articles linked to Steeplechase (athletics). --Philip Baird Shearer 18:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it's probably not that important but except for your statement I see no other indication that horse racing is the primary meaning of steeplechase. The reason that I'm concerned is that before it was very easy to dab links to steeplechase. Everything pointing there had to be disambiguated. Now one has to look through all pages linking there and find the ones that are wrong. --S.K. 18:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors" (WP:NC) for more than half the readers it is easier for the other half it is no more difficult. Any links which are linked to the wrong article can be fixed by an editor when they notice the error. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

About 50% of the users that type in steeplechase get the wrong page.
If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)". (WP:DAB#Primary topic) --S.K. 20:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you and I disagree. Take it to WP:RM if you think that it is worth debating the issue further. Please let me know if you do. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems we agree to disagreee. :-) I'll take it up at WP:RM. Thanks, --S.K. 07:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Battle of La Suffel

PH probably does have something on this as it looks like part of the seige campaign that went on after Waterloo, must have been about 24 of these from what I remember. I'll have a look tonight as I am at work now. Oh and thanks for the help on the hundred days. Tirronan 19:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Phillip, I've checked and there were actions all over the place, around the area you give there were 3 fortresses under seige by the Prussian II Corps and the North German Corps. These started on or about the 26th and 2 of them continued until Sept. There is no mention of this action and 20k troops would have been huge in this area of operations being greater in total than either of these Corps. Rapp marching around either would have been noted. I've checked the operations around Paris which was being surrounded at this point and see to references to Napoleon and Davot ordering him to assist that area but no mention of him again in any action. What ever folks may think of PH he is pretty meticulous in his affairs and I don't see him missing this. A formed Corps of 20k troops would have had a large impact as the Main forces around Paris both British and Prussian barely numbered 100k. If you have any information around this battle it might assist in my search but as of now I find not a word of support for this. I'm getting a bit suspisious of this battle. Tirronan 16:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Korea vs. Japan

Having been in the US Navy you get around more than a bit. One of the things you get shocked by is the amount of out right hate there still exists between the 2 Nations, well the Chinese are no fans either, sheesh to be honest I think most of the surounding Nations are not all that happy about Japan. There are serveral island groups that are contested like the ones mentioned and the Chinese Navy sank a Vietnamese gunboat over one of them in another island group. As I take it the Japanese were not the nicest conquorers where Korea was concerned and I gather that is coloring the issue more than a bit. These islands are 1 of 4 groups that are fairly hotly issues with the various countries. Some of them are mear collections of rocks barely above sealevel. I don't get it but then we Westerners have gotten in some pretty strange wars, I just finished a book on the 1812 war and it still leaves me scratching my head. Tirronan 00:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Bosnian Genocide

Hi, though I'd drop you a line. I see that you replaced my new intro text

The term Bosnian Genocide is used to refer either to the Srebrenica massacre or, by some, to the killing of Bosniaks during the 1992-1995 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

with the old text about the outcome of the ICJ court case. I'll explain myself, the reason I replaced the intro text was that I though it a bit odd to start off with a very specific text about the ICJ ruling when the term "Bosnian genocide" is really a term used (both before and independently of the ICJ case) by those who believe that the ethnic cleansing of the 92-95 war constituted genocide. The ICJ court case was an outcome of that belief (of which the most important finding was that, there hadn't been any general genocide in Bosnia outside of the Srebrenica massacre. Of course, there are those who believe this ruling to be wrong. CheersOsli73 16:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Berlin

No, this is about following capitulation of ALL GERMAN FORCES - in Germany, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Austria... in FRANCE, on May 7.. caused by fall of Berlin/hitler... Just read the beginning: "The fighting did not finish with the death of Hitler and the capitulation of Berlin. Some of the German forces which had been fighting against the three Soviet fronts continued to resist up to the end of the War in Europe" - said end of war was THE capitulation! In France, 5 days later, by the people who were not in Berlin. --HanzoHattori 15:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Walter Model A-class review

Hi Philip,

As someone who clearly knows his stuff when it comes to Milhist, I hope it's not too much of an intrusion if you could have a look at Walter Model? I've been working on it for a few weeks, and nominated it for A-class status. Thanks very much.

PS. Thanks also for keeping calm and not raising your voice throughout the Berlin kerfuffle. -- Hongooi 16:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to comment. I'm easy on where it goes; I guess since I've asked for a peer review, that's the most logical place. If you feel it's warranted, you could vote on the assessment as well.

Also, after reading this guy's bio, I get the feeling he's what would happen if Steve Ballmer was a field marshal. -- Hongooi 01:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

some answer, someday ?

[5]. Tshaw, RCS 11:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR (Re: Wikipedia:Footnotes)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Footnotes. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 18:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Alternative title for Bosnian Genocide article

I eagerly await your response to my question. Live Forever 21:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

RfC?

It may be easier to put WP:FOOTNOTE up fir MfD through...Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You may also be interested in the straw poll at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Straw_Poll. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo: country debate

Hello. There's a discussion going on Talk:List of countries as to whether or not Kosovo should be included in that list. You've contributed to discussions on the page and I thought you might be interested. The articles List of countries and Annex to the list of countries (where the inclusion criteria reside) are both relevant. Cheers. DSuser 13:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. It's probably a minor point, but there a discussion and vote going on at Talk:Kosovo#Kosovo:_terminology as to whether or not it's better to use Kosovo rather than Kosovan or Kosovar in the Wikipedia articles. Perhaps you have no interest, in which case sorry to bother you! DSuser 15:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

A request

The article Night of the Long Knives is now a featured article candidate at WP:FAC. Your input would be especially appreciated.--Mcattell 21:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:RFChist list

I have nothing to do with that template. Ask Betacommand. MessedRocker (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin

Hello

What are you doing in the battle of Berlin article

From your edits it looks like that 45,000 soldiers and 40,000 were ALONE fighting 2,5 million Soldiers and these 85,000 men were able to inflict some 280,000 casualties

If you look at all other languages they all say that the Axis had 1,000,000 men

So why do you say that the Axis only had 85,000? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shipslong45 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This internet LEARNING home page also says 1 million

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battle_for_berlin.htm

So I will add the 1 million again ok? Shipslong45 10:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

HUH?

Just go here and look

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battle_for_berlin.htm

This is very Verifiable and Reliable since it is an official site sanctioned by the United Kingdom to educate its citizens, it does not get more reliable then that Shipslong45 10:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The 1 million was the figure initially given in Soviet estimates. In other words, 1 million defenders is what the USSR prepared for in their plans. However, due to the depleted nature of the divisions facing them, the actual strength was probably somewhat less. My gut feeling says ~700,000, which would account for the difficulties encountered in the campaign, as well as the high body count and the numbers of prisoners taken. The German strength total couldn't have been much less than 600,000, in my estimation. Combining the five field armies, plus Op Group Steiner, plus Volkssturm, plus police units you have something at least on the order of 50-60 divisions. Given that German divisions tended to be on the large side, if you treated those 50-60 divisions as full strength you would very well end up with a figure close to 1 million. Allowing for some depletion but retaining combat effectiveness, a more realistic total would be somewhat less, but not significantly less. There's no way to go here except by estimating, since Germany didn't have an accounting system in 1945, and what they did have was already breaking down in 44.

Unfortunately, the only figures that hint at an accurate total either this immediate postwar Soviet estimate of casualties I found (~937,000 killed/captured out of the expected 1,000,000), which is more of historigraphic rather than historical interest, or slanted pro-German accounts that seek to minimize any and all German engagement in this campaign out of some perverse sense of national honor (and I'm not bashing Ziemke, just idiots like Albert Seaton). It's true that the total Berlin garrison numbered 80,000-100,000, but if one wants to confine the operational area to the city itself, Soviet troop strengths would have to be revised to 350,000 for the seven armies that participated in the assault itself.

That said, there has to be some way of putting up reasonable estimates, but all the sources I have read either use the 1,000,000 figure (probably more accurate but not good enough for reasons stated above) or play the transparently disingenuous lowballing game that assumes the reader has no grasp of basic arithmetic. When/IF I find a sourced statistic that seems reasonable, I'll try to put it up. Until then, would it be all right to qualify the 1,000,000 figure as an initial estimate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.160.55.123 (talk) 15:07:42, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Early human rocket flight efforts

You have not completed the AfD nomination for Early human rocket flight efforts. See the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion – you have to create the discussion page with your rationale, and list the discussion on the AfD project page. — Swpb^talk|edits 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC) 13:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hi there Philip. I came across another substantial copyvio at the Endemic warfare page - most of the article, actually!

I've deleted the offending material, and left a note to that effect on the article's talk page, but since I'm not an admin I haven't left a warning note at the user's talk page, I thought that would probably be best left to an admin if it is deemed appropriate. Thanks, Gatoclass 19:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll go back through some of the recent edits by 89.102.140.194 and see if I can spot any similar problems.

- Thanks Philip, but if you're planning to do that, I should let you know that you can save yourself the trouble regarding the "list of wars and disasters by death toll" page as it is not suitable for copyedits and I keep a close watch on this page myself. Gatoclass 06:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Original Research/Gatoclass

Hi Philip, I came across some original research at the List of wars and disasters by death toll page (for example, 50 million dead from man-made famines under the British Raj). That's just unprofessional and leads to disputes of neutrality. Wikipedia is not a blog. Sections Genocide and Democide & Man-made famines need a major rethink. See Talk:List of wars and disasters by death toll.

Wikipedia:No original research (NOR) is one of three content policies. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.

I've removed some of the offending material, but as you know since I've had a number of differences of opinion with editor Gatoclass already I thought it might be best if the warning came from an admin rather than an adversary, so I contacted you. By the way, I've checked the Endemic warfare page and I admit your previous warning about copyedit was partly legitimate, however, some deleted material at the Endemic warfare page wasn't copyedit. 89.102.140.194 09:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)