User talk:Bobfrombrockley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Bobfrombrockley, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  mgekelly 11:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: my edit summary on Neo-fascism and religion[edit]

Hi, Bob - I just now saw my edit summary on Neo-fascism and religion, and I just want to be sure you don't think I was "shouting" -- I used the ALLCAPS only because there's no bold available in edit summaries. (I hope my explanation was clear enough!) Cheers :) Cgingold 14:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have read it that way, but that's really nice of you to be worried. I think I'm persuaded too. BobFromBrockley 16:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC on Mitsos[edit]

Hi. I'm acting as advocate for an editor who has been having issues with Mitsos. As part of the DR process, we have opened an RfC in order to get community input on behavior that several users feel is uncivil and biased. Seeing as how you have interacted with Mitsos in the past, we would appreciate any input you may have on the matter. Please visit the Request for Comment page and leave your thoughts. Thanks very much, Bobby 16:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!![edit]

I noticed you edit Jewish related articles. Would you be interested in joining wikiproject:Judaism? ta! frummer 12:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

New Left[edit]

Hi, I just noticed you've run across that good old anonymous author who wrecked havoc on the Salvador Allende article recently. He's been recently banned for personal attacks and the Allende article (even it's talk page for a few days) had to be locked from editing by annon's. He's even attacked a number of admins over those issues. If I were you I'd report him if he continues his disruptive edits, though a long term block is not an option as his IP changes daily.--Caranorn 20:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Have been away from wikipedia for a while, will see if he has struck again, and then consider reporting. BobFromBrockley 17:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the site! It's a privilege to work with you. As you probably know, you are among only a handful of specialists working on articles related to 20th century politics. 172 | Talk 17:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks 172! I'm not sure how much of a specialist I am though... BobFromBrockley 15:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Rejiocing[edit]

Glad to hear that you're not upset about the 'rejiocing' incident. At the time, I assumed that you were a patriotard, and was unaware of your stance regarding the whole "class war" thing. *raises fist* As for "Jewish anarchism", I assume that JaneDoe put the link in on the basis of who I am as a person, rather than what I write on my blog. DayKart 11:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Fascism and Nazism as representative forms of socialism[edit]

I am sorry to bother you, but I really need some help. There is an ongoing campaign by a few editors to portray Fascism and Nazism as representative forms of socialism. As part of this effort (a debate that stretches back to 2004), there are a tiny handful of editors who revert and redirect National Socialism to Nazism. I believe a majority of editors support redirecting National Socialism to National Socialism (disambiguation). I realize we just had a poll on the Nazism page where I thought this issue was settled, but apparently the struggle is not over. Please consider voting in the new poll, or adding a comment at: Talk:Nazism#Survey:_redirecting_National_Socialism. Also consider notifying other editors with an interest in this matter. I am doing the best I can, but need assistance. Thanks.--Cberlet 19:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for types of socialism[edit]

Hello. I've wanted for some time to re-integrate types of socialism into the main socialism article, and I was hoping you could help me with this project. The "controversial classifications" section should be moved to a new article entitled interpretations of socialism (temporary proposed title), where we should talk about all the different definitions of socialism used by self-identified socialists. The rest should be checked for quality, improved if necessary, and then finally moved to socialism. What do you think? -- Nikodemos 07:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

After a day or two of thought, I'm still really undecided on that. I think the article as it is is pretty poor, but I think it has a purpose. I'd like it make clear there have been three major currents of socialism: revolutionary or Marxian socialism, democratic socialism and social democracy, and libertarian socialism, as well as other minor currents, such as the ethnic ones. Each of the sections would give brief description of that tradition, name some major figure and movements, and then really briefly introduce the major sub-categories within them (e.g. revolutionary socialism would introduce Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, etc, with no more than a sentence each). However, this would mean a complete re-write, very time consuming, so maybe your solution is better. Have you raised this on the discussion pages of the relevant articles? BobFromBrockley 15:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, having looked at liberalism and conservatism, I think I've come over to your position. So, is this right, socialism should have:
Is that what you're thinking? But clearly this needs to be raised on talk pages first. BobFromBrockley 15:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Daniel McGowan[edit]

I reverted your edit to this article because I'm pretty sure that this guy, who wrote the article you linked to, is not the subject of the Daniel McGowan article here. --OnoremDil 11:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! BobFromBrockley 11:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Socialists' Group[edit]

No problem; I'm glad to help.

I've done a lot of work on the Szmul Zygielbojm article, and I had put a "dead link" in there to the JSG, so I was pleasantly surprised to find a new article about the JSG. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 19:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yiddishism[edit]

A tag has been placed on Yiddishism, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. - Tiswas(t) 15:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Principles of Socialism[edit]

One thing that Lenin said that is almost universally agreed by socialists was in his State and Revolution. Where under the section for "the First Phase of Communist Society" he outlined the two basic economic principles of socialism:

"He who does not work, neither shall he eat." and "An equal ammount of products for an equal ammount of labor"

As you know there's already an article for "From each according to ability, to each according to need" which is the economic principle of communist society. Do you think that there should be an article for the economic principles of socialism, since they have been mentioned by every major contributor to Marxist theory? Since you are one of the few people on wikipedia who isn't full of themselves and knows what he's talking about, I felt I had to ask before I made the article. (Demigod Ron 02:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for kind words! There is a socialist economics page - maybe what you're talking about could be a section there? Perhaps in this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_economics#After_Marx ? BobFromBrockley 12:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

After much procrastination, I made the article he who does not work, neither shall he eat. Check it out and tell me what you think. Right now its bare-bones, but I'm sure the other Marxists will eventually find it and contribute their own knowledge.

Looks good, Demigod. I have done a minor edit, and added one inbound link. BobFromBrockley 14:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Now I'm trying to figure out how to write "an equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor" since that slogan has been said several different ways. In the Gotha critique Marx said something along the lines of "the worker recieves from society...exactly what he gives to it." While Lassalle said that "the worker recieves the undiminished product of his labor." Even Stalin had his own version of the slogan. This will make that article difficult to tackle. If you have any ideas, do tell. (Demigod Ron 00:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

entrism in the Uk labour Party[edit]

Hi Bob, Thanks for taking the time to read through all that stuff! You are quite right, this piece of mine would skew the entrism page. I'll make a new article and we can just do a link.

Just to let you know, on the socialism article, I have a couple of proposals in the "mixed economy" discussion Talk:Socialism#Mixed_economies.

I'm happy to accept red deathy's recommendations on them, but with the reservation that in the future we should draw up a short paragraph indicating the socialist critique of the Soviet Union. I have worked up some references, and have a clear idea what I want, but got no further, and will hopefully return to it at some point.

In relation to my point 3. in Talk:Socialism#The_Russian_Revolution_provoked_a_powerful_reaction... I know that in any article, changing the opening lines of the article needs careful consideration, and again I'm in no hurry. I understand your caution. Jacob Haller has added a comment as you know, and I have attempted a draft, drawing from the same sources as 172 did. Indeed, this para is from

I've no outstanding discussions on the history of socialism talk page (that I know of), but I think there is much to be done. Andysoh 20:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Fascist Action – an Anarchist perspective[edit]

Bob, feel free to delete this if you already know about it, but a new "part history and part political analysis" on AFA has just been published - you might get a review copy if you ask for one from the publisher. The text is not available online: it was printed (in cut form) in Black Flag and has been 'adapted' (not very well) by libcom.

Labour Theory of Value[edit]

I have not deleted your reference to John Locke on this page though it has previously been discussed and rejected. Locke essentially advanced a labour theory of property - which is not the same thing. Moreover, Locke is attempting to justify property whereas Marx etc are trying to explain price, which is a real world phenomenon, justified or otherwise. Marx, for one, argues that labour-based valuation is unjustified (See Gotha Program).--Jack Upland 09:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jack. I was new to the article, and came to it from another, where Locke and labour theory of value were invoked, and noticed no mention of Locke on LTOV article. I think Locke is important in development of LTOV, even if it may not be accurate to say he articulated it. I'll have another look. Thanks for graciously not deleting! BobFromBrockley 09:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

On reflection I think it should stay because someone is always going to reinsert it. The text as it stands says that the LTV is 'traced' to Locke, which is suitably non-committal. Marx cites Franklin as the originator of the theory. I haven't read all the texts so I can't comment. I have read extracts from Locke which explain his justification of property, though, and these are not economic as such, but rather a - very historically inaccurate - explanation and justification of social inequaliy. I am extremely wary of anything that lends support to the misrepresentation of the LTV as a theory of what ought to be rather than what is. This leads to a totally misunderstanding of its application and falsifies its place in the history of economic thought - Adam Smith & co didn't see it as moralistic.--Jack Upland 18:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I've re-read the article, and think that the way it is formulated does not say that Locke authored the LTV, so I don't think it is inaccurate. It seems to me he should be mentioned in the article, but obviously not in a way that distorts his views. So, feel free to edit it out if you think it makes too strong a claim! BobFromBrockley 09:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, should be OK as is - better inside the tent pissing out etc...--Jack Upland 17:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Coalition operations article[edit]

I just wanted to let you know that thefeargod already stripped out most of the information from the article stating that it was already in other locations on wikipedia. His intent it seems is to leave a page full of tables of operations with little or no desciption of what they are for.--Kumioko 19:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


Redirect of Das Naye Leben[edit]

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Das Naye Leben, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Das Naye Leben is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Das Naye Leben, 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. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 14:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish Bolshevism by The Britons with a Forward by Alfred Rosenberg[edit]

Dear Wikipedian, I thought you might be interested in the note (below) I've left on the Protocols of Zion page.

Dear dedicated fellow Wikipedians,

Those of you who know about The Protocols know that when it/thy reached the West, like Rats from a sinking ship, used it through "appropriate" anonymous editorial commentary, to blame the Jews for Bolshevism. So I would imagine that you all would be interested in what's happening to the article above. I hope you guys and gals can come over there and contribute your valuable input and, hopefully, support, to the changes I've found it necesary to make.
Best regards,
Best wishes to you, --Ludvikus 18:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Council of the People's Commissars & A Protocol of 1919[edit]

Nice work at The Jewish Bolshevism!!! Much appreciated.

I'd like to solicit your help in the above. I'm tracing the roots of Jewish Bolshevism.
I think I'm getting Reversions from contemporary White Russians. And I think your in the above input would be helpful.
Best, --Ludvikus 23:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Have had a look and made some minor edits, plus have commented at talkpage of Jewish Bolshevism. All are now on my watchpage. BobFromBrockley 09:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Territorialsim[edit]

Hello, I saw your comments on the talk page for Territorialism. I am comfused why the JAO was so hard to get included in the article. I have added the following to the article, with a proper reference, and posted it on its talk page;

Apart from the (ITO), within the USSR there was also a Territorialist effort in Ukraine, the Crimea and then towards Birobidzan, where a "Jewish Autonomous Region" was established in 1934. [1] Thanks and take good care. Culturalrevival 11:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that Zionists are unwilling to accept that there were a range of different forms of Jewish political movements, including non-Zionist forms of Jewish nationalism, and are unwilling to accept that there was a historical period when the Stalinist project coincided in some of its aims with Jewish national aspirations. Some of the same editors who have tried to keep the JAO out of articles like Territorialism also reject the need for a Jewish nationalism article, as they do not believe that there are other forms of Jewish nationalism than Zionism. BobFromBrockley 10:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Three Distinctive Aspects of Neoconservatism[edit]

Thank you for combining these with the three pilers of neoconservatism. Nice work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.247.152 (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Milly Witkop[edit]

Hi Bob, since her name is on your to-do list, I thought you might be interested that I've started working on an article about Milly Witkop. It's currently still a sub-page of my user page. Feel free to contribute nonetheless.--Carabinieri 01:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That's brilliant Carabinieri. I'll try and add stuff later! By the way, I liked the pages you've been involved in creating. BobFromBrockley 14:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Great. Thanks, I'm not unimpressed by your work.--Carabinieri 00:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Majer Bogdanski[edit]

Hello Bob. We are purging talk pages without articles. I came across one you'd made with notes/refs for a Majer Bogdanski article, so I moved it into your user space. It is now at User:Bobfrombrockley/Majer Bogdanski. All the best! Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome[edit]

-- though actually it wasn't that box that you lifted from my page, but the other two. Glad to see that others find them relevant! RolandR 15:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for doing some cleanup work on the Iraqi Insurgency article. That article was a mess! It still is but far better now. Before it sounded like it was writen by a insurgent, or a supporter of the insurgency. Do you plan on doing more work on the article? Cheers!--SJP 00:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to keep monitoring it, to make sure the Resistance polemic doesn't creep back in, but I don't think I have the time or knowledge to do the work that really needs doing of updating it and stripping out OR. Thanks too for your excellent work on it! BobFromBrockley 14:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Your welcome:) When I find the time, I will try to source it some more, and take out some more OR. Have a nice day.--SJP 22:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Maurice Ludmer[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Maurice Ludmer, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.irr.org.uk/faces/ludmer.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 10:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein, Chomsky and "Jewish origin" in the anti-Zionism article[edit]

Hi Bob,

I notice you've hacked around with the attempt by someone in Anti-Zionism to claim that Finkelstein and Chomsky aren't really proper Jews at all but just have a Jewish origin. I felt it necessary to insert more from Chomsky to demonstrate that he regards himself as someone who grew up a Jew with views on Zionism that would not have been out of the ordinary at the time. At least he hasn't yet been labelled as self-hating in the article.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good quote you inserted Peter. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Bob. I found it elsewhere on Wiki.
BTW, I found your library list an interesting skim. Nice to see Bakunin, Kropotkin and Rocker on a Marxist's list. And we also have books my Moorcock, Rushdie, Sinclair and Ackroyd in common.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Germinal[edit]

Hi Bob, it's me again. I created a page about the Jewish anarchist journal Germinal from London. Since you appear to have some command of the Hebrew alphabet, could you add the original Yiddish spelling to the beginning of the article?--Carabinieri (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Carabinieri, I really appreciate the work you're doing on wikipedia! The transliteration of the issue in the jpeg is Zsherminal, which is what the article says. In standard Yiddish now, I think it would have been written differently, in a way that would be transliterated as Dzherminal (with the zh bit sounding like a French J, as in jamais), because there is no letter for the J sound (as in Englsh judge) in Yiddish, but spelling then was idiosyncratic, especially as Rocker was, as you note in the article, only a learner - essentially he wrote German in Hebrew letters. The headline on the front page in the jpeg is "Der anarchizmus un di menshliche shprache" which I think roughly means "Anarchism and human language", but in a very German version of Yiddish. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Israel Narodiczky/Yisroel Naroditski deserves a page of his own, as playing a key role in the lives of Isaac Rosenberg, Hayyim Nahman Bialik and Avram Stencl as well as Rocker. Another task to add to the list... BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow, I can understand that (without any knowledge of Yiddish, just German). What I was asking is if you could add the Hebrew letters to the article, like the articles on Israel or Yiddishkeit. This may sound too simple, considering there's an image with the Hebrew letters right in the article, but looking at my keyboard all I see is Latin letters and I have no idea how to do this. Currently, I'm working on a couple of other topics, but I'll look into Israel Narodiczky.--Carabinieri (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, never mind. Danny has added the Yiddish name now.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry: I completely misunderstood. Glad Danny got there. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

library thing[edit]

I see that you use Library Thing and you use Wikiuserboxes. Did you know you can make one of these?

Open book 01.svg This user is a Thingamabrarian. Click here to see my books.


Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic, thank you! I'll put it on my userpage. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

CFD[edit]

Commission on Integration and Cohesion[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Commission on Integration and Cohesion, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.communities.gov.uk/communities/commissionintegration. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon[edit]

Hi Bob

Please look at the discussion on Talk:Gilad Atzmon about reliable sources and Jews Against Zionism, and chip in with any thoughts tou may have. RolandR (talk) 08:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

ZPSD, PZ, etc.[edit]

I think we can quite safely conclude now that JSDP and PZ are not the same. However, this underlines the importance of creating precise organizational article on PZ, rather than describing it as a diffuse international movement. For exampe we need a Jewish Social Democratic Workers Party (Poalei Zion) article (or possibly more, were the Polish and Russian parties separate entities?). --Soman (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that these specific party pages are needed - although I think they should be in addition to the main page. Of course, there are a number of problems that will come up(although these can be dealt with): in particular the fact that changing borders in Central/Eastern Europe meant that national parties often split and fused in complicated ways, making it harder to pin them down, and the fact that these parties were operating in more than one language, and their names in different languages might not translate directly... I am very busy at the moment, but I will try and work on this project.BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of democratic socialist parties and organizations[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of democratic socialist parties and organizations, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of democratic socialist parties and organizations. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Cgingold (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Martin Wright and fascism[edit]

Yo Bob, could you explain the rationale behind this edit? Is the quote not from the citation referenced? Skomorokh 11:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

In one sentence mentioning Martin W in an aside in a paragraph about Class War in a book that covers an immense amount of ground about thousands of years of London history, Clive Bloom does say that Martin W was "drawn to" fascism, but gives no explanation about what this vague term means, or what evidence there is for this. (There is no source cited.) In fact, Martin Wright was never drawn to fascism, and it seems to me scurilous in a biography of a living (and indeed ill) person to mention an accusation that has one single dubious and ambiguous source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Wright has said that as a teenager in the late 1960s, he accepted some of Enoch Powell's message, but that by the time he reached adulthood he had long left this behind him.[2] But that is a big difference from saying he was "drawn to fascism", whatever that means. I don't think it is appropriate that Wikipedia contributes to a smear. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Zionism and Racism[edit]

Greetings, Bob. I just wanted to say that I agreed with your comments at the AfD for Zionism and Racism, except for one, which is what I wanted to just schmuz with you about for a second. You said that the demonisation of a country is OK, and not reason to delete an article. It seems to me that that is not what an encyclopedia is all about, and while we might have "issues" about Pakistan or Syria or India, for example; an encyclopedia would not carry articles expressly demonising those countries -- if there were criticism, it would be put into the appropriate article, eg Pakistan or Israel. Or re Israel, Finklestein's theories could be discussed on the Finklestein page etc. Isn't that in a way what the WP:NOT is talking about when it talks about a climate of mutual respect? It strikes me that this article is just another negative platform for discussion of Israel and as such breaks a number of rules. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Otherwise I agree with you 100% and thought your comment extremely well written and well thought-out. --Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tundrabuggy. I did not mean that it is OK for Wikipedia to demonise a country; I would be completely against that, and spend some of my wikipedia time trying to address such things. If an article by definition demonises a country, then it has no right to exist. But if a valid article is written in a POV way to demonise a country, than it can be edited to not do so. As it stood, the article was a soapbox platform, but it could be otherwise. Unfortunately, it is flawed in so many other ways, that it needs to go! BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Cocaine Blues[edit]

Actually, I don't much care for the wording I used, but at least it has no ambiguity to it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Red Action[edit]

You had stated in the discussion page of Red Action that you are friends with some of the members. I have tried to contact them but so far have not had any luck in doing so. I'm interested in their group and was hoping to ask them some questions concerning their beliefs, stance on certain subjects and membership status. Is there any way you could put me in touch with them? Otherwise, if you feel equipped to answer these questions I would be more than happy to get your e-mail or give you mine to converse. Any help you could provide in this area would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.91.184.187 (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am completely out of touch with all the Red Action people I used to know. You could try approaching via one of the IWCA websites, which are probably more regularly used than the RA one. RA are, understandably, very cagey about these sorts of contacts though! BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism[edit]

I think your recent edit to Anti-Zionism was lost when I undid a change made by CJCurrie. The issue was the necessity of presenting context first, and was not you edit. Sorry. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The left and feminism[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The left and feminism, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

This article was merged into Left-wing politics in 2008. The text there and here are identical. It doesn't make sense to have a separate article devoted to "The left and feminism" since feminism is by definition part of left-wing politics. The feminism summary at Left-wing politics should actually just link to feminism and this article should be deleted.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Kaldari (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Schapiro[edit]

Greetings, Bob. I've written two articles on Jewish anarchists you might be interested in; Alexander Schapiro and Sascha Schapiro. I think you mentioned one of them in a blog post somewhere, so if you have anything to add or correct, it would be most appreciated! Regards, Skomorokh 04:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Great articles! Thanks for the tip.BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


Hello![edit]

I read your message in my discussion page about the ideology of PDL. I think as you that this party is collocated at the right-wing position because some politics of the party are rightist such as the immigration, the economic politics and the populism of the leader. In my country (Italy) says that PDL is a center-right party but I don't believe in it because there are a lot of nao-fascists and conservative liberals and the christian democrats are in minority. So I join with you for this proposal. --Baf09 (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Anti-capitalism[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Anti-capitalism. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-capitalism. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Circassian diaspora[edit]

Hello Bob--I hope you don't mind, but I nominated your article for WP:DYK. Congratulations on producing an interesting read, Drmies (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Circassian diaspora at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Toдor Boжinov 15:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't write it, I just removed it from the diaspora article, as it seemed to me to stand alone as an article! BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I see that now--and as such it is not eligible for DYK. Also, I was instructed to put a "copied" template on the article to provide proper attribution per GDFL; see User_talk:Ucucha#Circassian_diaspora. Next time you copy and move information, please don't forget to provide proper attribution. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I didn't know about the copied template, although it should have been instinctually obvious to me to say something on the talk page of the new article.BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

London Wikimedia Fundraiser[edit]

Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/London - expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com.

Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Contribution Team cordially invites you to Imperial College London

All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 15:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference[edit]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Promise[edit]

Hi Bob Re your alteration to the synopsis of ep 1 of The Promise, "...Israeli clubbers are depicted as callously laughing at her plight...", could I make an observation? The clubbers are laughing because they think Erin is drunk and has passed out. This is made clear when Eliza subsequently says "Fuck off; can't you see she's epileptic?". My concern with your change is that it suggest the clubbers are laughing callously because Erin is fitting when dialogue makes it pretty clear that that is not the case. Best wishes Peter Kosminsky (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


Yes, but it does look as though you are insinuating an insensitivity on the part of those Israeli clubbers. Your drama is politically loaded. What a viewer will take from it is a point about Israelis in general, their callousness.Zkharya (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
As an dramatic ploy by you, it is particularly crass, your having scarcely visited Israel, nor knowing much to anything about the Israeli club scene, or the people that do it. They are probably more clued about that kind of thing than the average British clubber, since basic medical training is part of national service. That is a particularly glaring screw up in one such as yourself, Kominsky, whose specialité are things military. You're a bit Anglo-centric, Kominsky, and a bit behind the times.Zkharya (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


Thanks Peter. I get your point, and maybe it should be worded differently. (I also committed a bad and failed to uncheck "minor edit" for that rather major one.) My experience of clubbing most people wouldn't laugh at someone shaking like that; shaking is not a sign of drunkenness, so if they thought she was drunk I still think they are portrayed as callous and unpleasant. That was a scene in the drama I found problematic and unconvincing. I'll go and look at the wording now.BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Bob. Much appreciated. Sorry the scene didn't work for you. Best wishes Peter Kosminsky (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob. I see that you have added a section to The Promise page on the reaction to the programme's broadcast in France. You cite the Jewish Chronicle as your source, as you do for your addition on the OFCOM report. As far as I'm aware, their are other French sources for what occurred in France. After reading the Jewish Chronicle report, I approached Canal+ for clarification. They told me that the demonstration was smaller than the figure quoted in the JC, as borne out by the video of the event posted on the French pressure group's website, that no meeting with a senior Canal+ executive took place specifically to discuss The Promise (Le Sermont) and no special caption or logo was inserted in front of each episode to remind the audience that what followed was drama. Canal+ have a generic drama logo that was used with Le Sermont, but this is deployed in front of every drama they transmit in the Monday 9pm slot. To suggest that a special caption was generated for The Promise is wrong. I do see the difficulty here, given that none of the above is 'sourceable', but I would urge you to seek other sources for what occurred in France to corroborate what is being said by the Jewish Chronicle, which has become unremittingly hostile to the programme. Best wishes Peter Kosminsky (talk) 07:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I have changed the language for now, to make sure that it is clear that this is JC reportage not truth, and will look for more sources.BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Good work with your edits today: well done! Best wishes Headhitter (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying up after me!BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I obviously have to be careful how I say this, as I don't want you to be accused of being my creature or in my pocket, but do you mind if I also say well done on some very elegant editing? The piece is very accurate and balanced, as far as I can see. Thank you. Best wishes Peter Kosminsky (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bob. I noticed your dialogue on The Promise on User talk:Zkharya. You refer to the fact that quotes from the Jewish Chronicle ought to be given special prominence on the page. I was puzzled by this remark. In thinking about it, it struck me that the site contains no quotes from Palestinian sources, though several are available. Since the dialogue you are having with Zkharya pertains to the content of The Promise wikipage, could I suggest that it might be better conducted on the discussion page for that site, where other editors linked to that site can read and comment?
I haven't checked what I wrote on Z's page, but I don't think I said the JC ought to be given "special prominence", but I think that Z is correct that the JC is the main media outlet within the Jewish community in the UK, and that it is the best source on mainstream UK Jewish opinion. And I think that the UK Jewish response to the series is very relevant, because of the subject matter, so I do not see it as problematic that the JC is well represented in the article. I was making comments at Z's talk page in order to explain my edits of Z's edits, in order to defuse tension. The editing of the article, and especially z's edits, have been hot-tempered, and I think that it is best to proceed by consensus and with calmness, and I felt that a comment there was the best way to achieve that. Does that make sense?BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob. It makes sense but doesn't really answer the points I was raising. I can understand why you feel Jewish response to The Promise - at least as expressed in the pages of the Jewish Chronicle - might be especially relevant. By the same token, and if Wikipedia is to be seen to maintain the impartiality for which it is rightly known, Palestinian response is also especially relevant. And yet editors do not seem to have rushed to include such reaction, even though it is readily available.
I asked whether discussion of content of The Promise pages, (eg your remark: P.S. Am toying with the idea of fleshing out the historical "Subjects depicted in the serial" section, which would show where the series is and where it isn't accurately reflecting real events. I've started doing that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bobfrombrockley/The_Promise It would be great if you could work on this with me, and when it is in shape we can paste it in and see what happens), wouldn't be better placed on the discussion site adjacent to The Promise. This would allow other interested editors to add their thoughts. As you know, discussion of the content has already taken place outside Wikipedia on various special interest blogs. Peter Kosminsky (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that Palestinian response is also relevant. It would be very good to have some included in the article, for the same reasons. If I have time I will work on that too - adding to my already large to do list!
On the sandbox page, yes, probably should mention on talk page. I was planning to do so after I'd done some work on it. Trouble is, I am really busy right now and don't have time, so it's just an idea I was tinkering with.BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Belsen footage and Auschwitz[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Discussion moved to Talk:The Promise (2011 TV serial)#Belsen footage and Auschwitz.

Also, could I ask how you know that footage used at the start of Ep 1 of The Promise was from Auschwitz? Best wishes Peter Kosminsky (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't "know" this. As I wrote in the article, "According to Annette Wieviorka,..." and there's a citation there to my source of her statement. Wieviorka, btw, is a pretty respected historian. Is she wrong?BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I was referring to your entry at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bobfrombrockley/The_Promise. Peter Kosminsky (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, sorry I see. Yes, something like that should not go into the article without a reference. Is it correct, by the way?BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and thank you for your kind words at 14:56, 13 May 2011 above. It feels very odd, and a privilege, to have this conversation, through this medium! BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. It's very kind of you to say so, (as I said earlier, I hope me thanking you won't get you into difficulty here).
Re your point above: all the material we used in that section came from the Imperial War Museum and was licensed as such. We asked them for material from B-B and it arrived on a disk labelled B-B. I suppose it is possible that an error was made at source but I think it unlikely. Also, as I understand it, you are quoting second hand, i.e. from a source referred to by a journalist writing in La Croix. That journalist, uniquely amongst those who interviewed me in Paris after the screening, was troubled by the fact that, in his contention, the difference between a death camp and a concentration camp had not been made explicit in the film. As you know, many thousands died in B-B and the remarks Len makes in his diary were very closely based on the diaries, letters and books written by those British soldiers who were there at the time. I am afraid that, for them - and therefore for a character like Len - the difference between the two categories of camps appears to have been academic, given that their main task on arrival was to shovel and bulldoze enormous piles of dead bodies into open pits. I could not understand the La Croix journalist's concern, which was expressed in the context of a generally negative response to the programme. He did not mention a historian during our conversation, referring to the issue as his own opinion at that stage. I hope this helps. Best wishes.Peter Kosminsky (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Have edited the article to qualify the citation. I will add further work on that to my to-do list! BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I didn't know what to do with the La Croix text when I first covered it for the article.

In addition to what you've already quoted in the footnote:

Laurent Loucher quotes Annette Wieviorka, a French historian of the Holocaust who has written about the liberation of the camp, to suggest that film sequences from Bergen-Belsen and Auschwitz were mixed together, in a problematic way: "Viewers will believe that the British, liberating the camp of Bergen-Belsen, liberated the Jews from a death camp. However, Bergen-Belsen was a concentration camp. To support his claim, Kosminsky blends footage shot at Bergen-Belsen and Auschwitz. Thus, the film is constructed, the first few minutes, on a montage which appears as true but which is already false. Which, in what follows, allows him to suggest that the survivors are ungrateful."

the La Croix article then added the further paragraph:

She added "Should we remember that these liberators confined the death camp survivors in barracks, before letting them die of typhus?" "We had the sense that our lives did not matter," judged Simone Veil citing this episode.

This seems to me also an extraordinary comment. A typhus epidemic was raging in the midst of widespread starvation, which the British were substantially unprepared for; all while the war was not yet concluded. Of course it is true that 14,000 died in the month after the liberation; and no doubt, as with any calamity, there were perhaps some actions which could have been done differently. But given the resources and knowledge available (and despite Simone Veil's comment -- see here and here for further context), it is hard to know what the British could have done more; and pretty bitter to see the response of soldiers doing their best in those horrific conditions as anything other than heroic.

(The Promise of course didn't touch the question of Bergen-Belsen displaced persons camp, and the viewer is not shown the situation of Jews in post-1945 Europe, for example post-war pogroms in Poland, which is an authorial choice; but given the budget of time available, and the power achieved by moving straight from Belsen to the rounding-up and detention of Jews on the beaches of Palestine, one that seems quite defensible).

Yet to read the presentation by La Croix of Wieviorka's comments, the bizarre implication being made seems to be that Belsen was just some kind of mild holding camp, and all the deaths there were the British fault. As for the claim that viewers would believe the British liberated a death camp rather than a concentration camp, this also is very odd. For a pure death camp, like Treblinka or Sobibor, there would have been no living emaciated bodies for the British to discover, because, bluntly, the victims would have been smoke. It precisely is a concentration camp where liberation might reveal such living cadavers. (Auschwitz was a hybrid of the two, that comprised both a work camp/concentration camp and a death camp). The story of each of the camps and ghettos was different. I, as a complete non-expert, certainly couldn't certify for sure whether or not the footage the IWM provided might have contained footage of Auschwitz. But did it misrepresent Belsen? Surely not.

To my mind, the suggestion in the article that The Promise manifestly misrepresented Belsen, if anything, just makes the journalist and his interviewee look like they don't know what they're talking about. Which is why I originally took perhaps the soft option route of not including it. But if it is to go into the article, even as a footnote, then at the very least we should also include that the footage was included on the basis that it was presented to the film-makers as footage of Belsen; and it would also be appropriate (if we're going to report an accusation like this) to email Wieviorka to clarify why she belived there was footage of Auschwitz in the material used (ideally with her identifying particular shots), and then to put those assertions to the IWM. Until such clarification is obtained, it seems to me it would be better to remove these assertions to the talk-page, and take them out of the article (even its footnotes). Jheald (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Not reading French well, (and being rather busy at the time), I had not picked up on those comments in Le Croix. They strike me as very strange. I read a great deal about B-B. Books, memoirs, diaries, letters. Amongst the most moving was the testimony of a group of British doctors who arrived in B-B unprepared for what they wd find there. They describe powerfully - and quite emotionally - their desperate attempts to save the horribly emaciated, sick and dying inmates they found. How they tried without success to adapt the food used in the Bengal Famine to coax the B-B survivors back to life. Len's remark about 500 a day dying and 500 a day continuing to die, "whatever we do", was based on their testimony. The doomed efforts of these young men and women to save their charges, the compassion they showed, moved me greatly and lives with me still. I think the Le Croix suggestion, if it is as reported above, is grossly unfair. Peter Kosminsky (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

JH/PK, I think it is sensible to remove this material from the article to the talk page. Although I think that Wieviorka is a highly respected historian, it is odd that she appears here so categorical about the mixing of footage, and I have no reason to doubt PK is telling the truth about the footage. Also slightly unclear from La Croix article whether it was an interview with her he is quoting or what. I would suggest this whole conversation here be copied to the talk page. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC) P.S. am abandoning my sandbox for now, might get back to it some time when I am less busy.BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Bobfrombrockley. You have new messages at Talk:Gerry Gable.
Message added 01:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayjg (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Counterpunch Fair enough.Keith-264 (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Neo-marxism[edit]

I have nominated Neo-marxism for deletion, Please see: [3] Slrubenstein | Talk 09:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing on your blog?[edit]

In searching for the Oliver Kamm article, I ran into your comments on removal of material from Atzmon article on your blog as the top return. This easily could be seen as canvassing for others to come and support your editing at the article. When I was so warned about a blog entry a few years back on some topic or other, I immediately removed the blog entry. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Carol. Sorry for slow reply; I have been away and off-line. I was not aware of the WP policy on canvassing. Having reviewed it, I am not sure whether this could be seen as canvassing. I certainly did not intend this as a message to other WP users, but rather as a repository of information deleted from Wikipedia. I will edit the post to be clear. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Better to find out on a minor issue than a major one :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Pro-war Left[edit]

Hello. As a contributor to this article, you may be interested to know I have nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-war Left (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Sociology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Primitive (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) 10:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"It refers to individuals and groups on the left of the political spectrum"[edit]

Can you please participate in the the discussion at Talk:Anti-fascism#.22It_refers_to_individuals_and_groups_on_the_left_of_the_political_spectrum.22? I've mentioned you and a questionable revision of yours there. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Democratic socialism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Britain and Third Way (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) 10:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

The Citation Barnstar The Citation Barnstar
Thank you for all the great books for the Multiculturalism article Moxy (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Moxy, that's really kind.BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Policy Research Centre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islamic Foundation (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) 11:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Orthodox Marxism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Capital and Labour (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) 11:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Criticism of the Israeli government, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Beaumont (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) 09:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Squadism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages National Front and Socialist Workers Party (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) 12:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Harold Laski may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Party, especially for those on the left who shared his trust and hope in Stalin's Soviet Union.{[fact}} He was distrusted by the Labour politicians who were in charge, such as Prime Minister [[Clement

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to False consciousness may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • of class relations because of their belief in the probability or possibility of [[upward mobility]]).<ref>{{cite journal |journal=Sociological Perspectives|title=Upward Mobility of Low-Paid Workers:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Adam Werritty may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Gould#Controversies</ref> Britain’s Ambassador to Israel, and in some cases [[Mossad]] agents,{[cn}} with the intention of enlisting British support for an Israeli attack on Iran.<ref>http://www.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Just Journalism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Daniel Johnson and Michael Weiss (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) 08:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gypsy jazz, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Romani and Gypsy (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) 08:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to American Free Press may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • , and refers to Dankof as a Ron Paul supporter who is also a "Press TV propagandist".{ccn}} In a May 2011 article Dankof protested the British government attempting to shut down Press TV,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Romani people in Bulgaria may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ''Подобна е и ситуацията при кражбите на метали. Те носят поминък на около 60 хиляди цигани.'' ("A similar situation occurs with the theft of metals. It is a source of income for approximately 60,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alpha Plus Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservative Party. 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) 08:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)