User talk:PBS/Archive 9
Berthier: Prince of Wagram
Hi. Actually if you look at the link you provided http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/napoleon.htm#victory (and which I already knew) you find under victory title for Berthier:
Wagram for maréchal Berthier (1809, ext. 1918) Arms: Per pale: 1, Or a dexter arm proper, vested azure semy of bees or and lined of the last, holding a sword sable and on the arm a shield purpure, thereon the letter W within an orle and the motto COMMILITONI VICTOR CAESAR, all or, and a chief of duke of the Empire (Berthier); 2, Gules a on pale or three chevrons sable, and a chief of prince of the Empire (Neufchâtel).
Thus Berthier was a double prince. He had the sovereign title for Neufchâtel, awarded to him in 1806 and a victory title for the battle of Wagram, awarded in 1809. -- fdewaele, 7 December 2007, 8:56
Talk:Bosniaks
Sorry for me saying it, but aren't you beating a dead horse? --Ronz (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Bosnian Genocide
Hi, are we getting anywhere with the Mediation on the Bosnian Genocide article. It is senseless to be engaged in a tit for tat edit war with The DoB and Grandyx2 but at the same time it seems a bad option to just give up to exhaustion and stupidity and let them turn the article into a POV piece. Any other options for conflict resolution?Osli73 (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please Osli73, it is time for you to behave. Remain civil when accusing other users. It is an example of personal attack. I don't mind you asking Phillip for help, alhough it is not the Wikipedia way. Users participating in one edit war shouldn't cooperate in another. It is bad for user's reputation, and bad for Wikipedia. Maybe next time you should first think before starting some redundant propaganda based articles. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
So, would the article be ready for A-class review in your opinion or you have something else to change before we do this?? Best, --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I've replied. Cbdorsett (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
NOR Request for arbitration
Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 23:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Explanation
Thank you for better explaining your opposition and concerns. Your response makes perfect sense. I have written explanations for the text of the draft. Please review them and let me know if you have any further questions. I would also appreciate any constructive feedback (positive or negative) you might have. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Bosnian genocide
Hello Philip, thanks for your note on my talk page. After the edit, I immediately left a note for User:Osli73 explaining that it was a mistake, and letting him know that due to the history of a content dispute, and what seemed to me, to be two distinct versions of the article, I would leave it to him to discuss on the talk page, and to revert me if that was appropriate. You can see the comment I left him here. As I am unfamiliar with the content, or the content dispute, I did not feel it appropriate for me to make any decision, thus I used the edit summary to explain what happened, and anyone who is more familiar with it should feel free to revert me. Ariel♥Gold 03:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
NOR
The secondary sources replacement has undergone some revisions based on feedback. I would appreciate it if you would look over it again and let us know if you still agree with it. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Attention please Philip
Please note that User:Mmx1 has twice reverted a massacre I added, complete with reference. I trust you will block him if he engages in any further edit warring. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC))
List of massacres
Hi. I came across the old list of massacres page and found it very interesting and helpful. I noticed it has been changed a great deal and that you are trying to make it so every massacre has a source. I would like to help out on this page but I would like to know more about what are the guidlines and disputes you have already had with it. I noticed for instance that none of the classical massacres(such as the Roman Vespers), appear anymore. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfrantzman (talk • contribs) 15:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I would have liked to have helped with list of massacres but because of all the fueding that took place over that list most of it was deleted and then it was locked to editing, which means the page lost the whole point of its having existed in the first place, i.e. to provide a list of massacres. Because such high standards were also set to include massacres(because people had been adding POV massacres) it is no longer a list of massacres. The old list was far superior even if it was POV. That, after all, is the whole point of calling something a massacre, it is not neutral. So while I respect the long hours and hard work you have put in to trying to tame and control the list it seems that it will now never include many well known massacres and certainly will not contain many obscure ones, which the old list actually did. That is a tremendous loss of knowledge because it is handy to have a list of massacres like the old one which included a great variety and number of massacres.Seth J. Frantzman (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- There are a number of ways around this problem but some editors continue to insist that different standards for inclusion is the way to stop "unpalatable" massacres appearing on the list. This simply can't and won't work. If you think the old list was better then a big aid to restoring it would be a brutally honest title; such as "List of killings commonly called massacres by the Western/US/Anglophone media". But the defenders of the indefensible don't want that either - they want to produce a heavily slanted list and then pretend that it really represents the major verifiable massacres in historical and modern times. And worse; I fear some of them don't really understand the implications of different criteria of verifiability for different alleged massacres, ie, that it = POV. Sarah777 (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
RE:Tag
Hmm, that's strange, when I tagged it, it said that the article was something huge, like 191KB. Either someone must have adjusted the size after I tagged it, or my browser must be screwy. Anyways, happy editing! Icestorm815 (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks for explaining that to me! Icestorm815 (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
follow up question on massacres
Just so I understand. Are you intending to only include incidents that are known as a "massacre" in a third party text? This would include well known massacres such as the Sand Creek Massacre and I assume incidents such as the Sicilian Vespers which is known as a massacre(www.britannica.com/eb/article-9067619/Sicilian-Vespers). Can we also include on the list massacres that appear elsewhere in Wikipedia with the word 'Massacre' in the headline, such as the Sharpeville massacre?Seth J. Frantzman (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Franz Josef Strauß
Might I ask you to take a look at the new discussion going on at Franz Josef Strauß? Yes, it is an ancient topic (the use of ß on en-wiki), but this is one of the most prominent articles in which this issue is of significance. Given your experience, your input would be very much appreciated. Unschool (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
POV Edits
"List of massacres" - two of your recent edits were
- in the case of the Irish rebellion of 1641 based on a very mistaken premise
- in the case of the Fallajuh massacre no justification given
If you cannot contain your POV I suggest you hand over the "mentoring" of this article to someone else. (Sarah777 (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
Philip, I see that you continue to edit this article as an Administrator. In which case please see this example of WP:Edit warring by User:Jack.Hartford. I have left this message on his page but received no response:
- Please remove your reinsertion of the massacre "name" Irish Rebellion of 1641 which you restored without any discussion or explanation. Please beware that what you did is WP:Edit warring. - Sarah777 (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
As you are keeping this article in order could you please revert his edit - I note you have already edited this very "massacre".
Thanks - Sarah777 (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Philip, I note you have not responded, even though you seem to be the (self) appointed mentor of this article. But you have found time to make other POV edits that you know I cannot revert. Yet. (Sarah777 (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC))
POV accusations
I'll thank you to keep your POV accusations to yourself. Just because you don't like facts is no reason to start throwing POV accusations around. Hughsheehy (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism of your chosen article
Quit playing these silly games. You know full well that the the user, Heclot, is not editing in "good faith". The user keeps inserting spurious White Supremacist sources associated with National Vanguard, and making vast, sweeping, unsourced political generalizations. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, you ought to use your time more wisely and attempt to arrest this kind of article vandalism - instead of quoting irrelevant Wikipedia guidelines at me, personally, as a part of your ongoing attempts, laughable as they are, to get me blocked. Merry Xmas. Ledenierhomme (talk) 11:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Happy Christmas Philip
I guess this might be akin to the England v Germany football match Christmas 1914, but something tells me that behind all that American Patriotism is a good guy! (Or "sound man" as we'd say over here).
And the caption reads (least you wonder) Best Good Wishes for Christmas and the New Year --- Sarah777 (talk)
Polish names
I've seen you post with regards to names in different languages. Is an admin's preference and a vote on a different name, plus the similar name of a present day city versus an older duchy binding for matters like Talk:Duchy of Oświęcim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles (talk • contribs) 05:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hundred Days
Hi Phillip,
I've got the citation on this with Chesney, Charles Waterloo Lectures p.189 and I am putting that back in, sorry I missed the fact insert. Tirronan (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
D'Erlon’s I Corps wandered between both battles contributing to neither Quatre Bras nor to Ligny. Napoleon wrote to Ney warning him that allowing D'Erlon to wander so far away had crippled his attacks on Quatre Bras and made no move to recall D'Erlon when he could have easily done so.[citation needed] The tone of his orders leave it that he believed he had things well in hand at Ligny without assistance (as in fact he did).[citation needed]
Edit warring on List of massacres
Philip, Jack.Hartford deleted material I placed in the article to assist you in your work without any explanation. This is in clear contravention of the instructions on the "revert" page. Please alert him to the consequences of continued WP:Edit warring. I am getting rather tired of nearly ever single addition to this article that I make being instantly reverted without any explanation. I thought your your job was to stop that happening? (Sarah777 (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC))
- This IP is vandalising the List of Massacres. Please block. Ta (Sarah777 (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC))
It's only a name
Given your unhealthy intereste in codenames, I thought these sites might float your boat: [1] & [2]. Seems others share the interest! I'll add to the wiki lists as I get time. Happy New Year. Folks at 137 (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Request for mediation not accepted
|
A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Bosnian Genocide.
|
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
Yo! Bosnian Genocide?! Did I request mediation? No recollection of same! Sarah777 (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This is a promise...
you will suffer, i know where you live —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.206.189 (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Joyce Lebra as Unreliable source???
Hello Phillip, I notice you tagged the Lebra source as unreliable in the U Go page. Assuming that this was because the reference was not provided, I have now added it and removed the template. Please let me know if this was for any ohter reasons, since I will point out that Joyce Lebra is recognised as an expert on the war in southeast Asia. Happy New Year and regardsrueben_lys (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Image:Waterloo Campaign Map.svg is being reviewed for possible promotion to Featured Picture status. Since you seem to be active on articles related to the image, I would like your input specifically on the image's historical accuracy. You can leave any comments at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Waterloo Campaign Map. Thanks! -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 08:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Crufty Lists
Thanks for the info. I can't abide those crufty lists, I really can't! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I've finished the Battle of Borodino my next target is the French invasion of Russia. I can use your help on that one Phillip. Tirronan (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The same guys were on Battle of Borodino and that went pretty well. Come on over the it will be fine. Tirronan (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Dresden
Thanks for your note about Dresden. I would very much like to help fix that up at some point. I'm pretty sure it could become a featured article without a huge amount of effort, and it really ought to be, given the importance of it. I think you've done a great job staving off the extremes of POV on both sides. The result of doing that is often that editors are forced to compromise on the wording, which can lead to a stitled flow, which I feel is what has happened in this case. Having said that, I know what it feels like to have worked on an article solidly for years, and other people butting in aren't welcome. However, I hope you'll let me help improve the article, so long as it's done carefully. I'm going to buy the Frederick Taylor book, and once I've read that, I should be in a better position. If there's anything else that you regard as required reading, please let me know. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 04:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Admin role
Hi Phillip. I've seen you protected the Bosnian Genocide article and blocked Grandy Grandy, but you didn't block Osli which is very strange and unfair as you two share the same POV regarding Bosnian Genocide article. As you can notice, Osli also broke 3RR in Bosnian Genocide, (reverted 4 times, he wasn't just singned-in the first time), so I am going to discuss it with other admins about your biased approach. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Military occupation
Hi Philip. If its ok with you, I'd like to put in a disambig page because soldier is not a military occupation in the general sense of the word, nor does it cover such obvious occupations as sailor and airman.--mrg3105mrg3105 22:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
3RR
I think you've violated 3RR at Bombing of Dresden. The policy says that only three reverts (in whole or in part) are allowed in 24 hours, and they need not involve the same material. You might want to take the opportunity to revert yourself. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Which edit do you think puts me over the 3RR. I will of course revert it. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- The last one you did. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
In fact, you were already over it. You reverted five times in two and a half hours:
- 1st revert 11:00 Jan 7
- 2nd revert 13:13 Jan 7
- 3rd revert 14:09 Jan 7 <-- Not the Background
- 4th revert 14:16 Jan 7
- 5th revert 14:36 Jan 7
I don't intend to report this, but I'm assuming it will stop. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well I can revert that one (because it has already been reverted). Also I am not sure that you are right. However to show good faith I will not edit the Bombing of Dresden article or the talk page for 24 four hours. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- You added "not the background" to the above as though that matters. Please read WP:3RR. Any reverting at all counts toward 3RR. It needn't be the same material each time, and it needn't be a full revert. Partial reverts count too. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Maccacres
Hi, I just thought you would be interested in this largely unknown topic, please look at Massacres of Poles in Volhynia. Also, this one Ochota massacre. Greets Tymek (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Philip Baird Shearer, I've accepted the Bosnian Genocide informal mediation case, and the discussion is going to be on the article talk page.--Addhoc (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Scharnhorst & Gneisenau
The battleship/ battlecruiser debate has reopened. You may want to join in, again. Folks at 137 (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have opened an RfC on whether to refer to these ships as battleships or battlecruisers. Since you have participated in this debate previously, please have a look, read the debate, and make your views known: Talk:Scharnhorst_class_battlecruiser#Request_for_Comment:_Battleships_or_Battlecruisers.3F Regards, The Land (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: Battle of La Suffel
Hmm, I may innocently have stepped onto some pretty convoluted terrain. A French wiki page—of course, now I'm blanking—gave the commander as the Kronprinz of Württemberg, from which I made an obvious deduction. Schwarzenberg, of course, was in overall command on the Rhine. That's all I can say. Albrecht (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
And where in the BBC article you saw the term of "Bosnian Mujahideen"?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/840241.stm - strange, I see only "the Mujahideen".
But hey, maybe you see the things I can't see. --HanzoHattori (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, look at book and website searches I did. The term is NOT commonly used at all. Almost no one uses it. The claim that is used "often" is false. --HanzoHattori (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Informal mediation
Your comments were not deleted from Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-12-04 Bosnian Mujahideen. They were simply archived with the rest of the comments and notes previously made.[3][4] I hope that helps clear up any confusion. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Basically, everyone knows the position of everyone else at this point. The material is in a linked archive for reference. It just allows a clean slate for discussion pending the outcome of the AfD. If you have any other questions, please ask. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what you are at here Philip as virtually all the edit warring was by registered and established users (some very long established and obviously accustomed to having their way here). And as you can see the vandalism re-started immediately; mass deletion of all the Fallujah massacre references. Which, of course, I have now restored. Sarah777 (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
As you can see Sarah's a little perplexed by this. I would appreciate you at least having consulted with me before lowering the protection level. You're an involved party in this content dispute; I'm not. I am still assuming good faith but not everyone might have seen it that way. I can see what you are trying to accomplish but, if edit warring starts up again, I will restore full protection.
It really seems to me more and more like we're going to have to have an article RFC. Daniel Case (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Bosnian genocide
Actually, Addhoc (talk · contribs) is the volunteer on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-08 Bosnian Genocide. Vassyana (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)