User talk:PBS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Philip Baird Shearer)
Jump to: navigation, search
Noia 64 filesystems home blue.png
Crystal 128 kaddressbook.png
Crystal Clear app kaddressbook.png
Kpdf bookish.svg
Commons-logo-en.svg
Wikisource-logo.svg
Exquisite-kcontrol.png
Exquisite-network.png
Contributions
User Page

Talk Page

Notes

Library

Commons

Wikisource

Sandboxes

Userspace

Contributions

ANI[edit]

It seems defending myself roundly at the AN/I has done me no favours. The universal dislike is palpable! I edited peaceably from February when I started in Wikipedia until the beginning of December when I became more outspoken on editing points, and now this! You said you were going to give me an opinion on one of the charges. The AN/I is being dragooned to a conclusion by Legacpac, so I wondered if I could have this before it ended.

PS Why are so many uninvolved admins/editors using IP identities? P-123 (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
PBS has expressed his opinion, as have many other editors. I don't know who the IPs are but they may be involved or uninvolved editors and admins (but I'm not using an IP). Please start reading what others are saying to you and drop the stick because you are beating a dead horse. Legacypac (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
You said this at the AN/I:
"Having spent time going through ... list of accusations, there is only one that I think is substantial enough on its own to warrant concern even when assuming good faith, and I will discuss that directly with user:P-123 on the talk page of P-123. -- PBS (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)"
I would be grateful if you could let me know which one this was and why. P-123 (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant[edit]

I can probably find out from another source but I was wondering how it could be considered to put a level of semi-protection on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant so that unregistered users would not be able to directly contribute. I appreciate that this may raise issues with regard to users that are not autoconfirmed, but I would personally consider the benefits of protection to out weigh potential problems.

Thanks and Happy new year. I hope to personally give you more peace. GregKaye 11:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This idea may have some merit, but we are having issues across related minor articles too with IPs. Lots of terrorist wannabees on Wikipedia these days. Legacypac (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Opps - I read the request as being for the article - the talk page does not need protection. Sorry about that. Legacypac (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Archiving time on Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War[edit]

Hi, PBS, I was hoping for your advice of what to do here, both for future reference and to reduce the size of the talkpage in question. The page Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War is 326,556 bytes long with 73 sections and an archive time of 2 weeks. I feel that this is too much content, so I posted Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Sigmabot_archive_time, but this got no reply after 2 days, which on this talkpage seems to be a sign I'm not going to get another post. Should I try to change the time having never done so before and without consensus? Should I wait for you or another admin to get involved or ask one to help? Should I drop it altogether. Thanks. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for solving the archiving problem for the Syrian detailed map talk page. I guess if editing archive times comes under general sanctions, then so too must setting it up. The corresponding Iraqi map's talk page Module talk:Iraqi insurgency detailed map#Status of Alqosh could probably due with having archiving set up having 105 sections, about half of which are at least 4 months old, though the talk page is only 147,350 bytes long. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

An apparent violation of a PBAN on Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map by another editor[edit]

Pototo1 was given a PBAN on Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map, but then proceeded to make two edits that violated it. Callanecc is busy in real life, so I was hoping an uninvolved administrator could help so we can avoid the whole messy and time consuming ANI process, especially as this is all I have to say. Can you help, PBS? John Smith the Gamer (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Move Moratorium[edit]

The ISIL Move Moratorium expires in less than 48 hours. I'd like to see it extended since the world opinion has gone even stronger against legitimizing the group by the "Islamic State" name. What is the correct procedure to move forward? Legacypac (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about legitimizing or de-legitimizing a viewpoint, idea, group, or person. We're here to encylcopedia build, not fight the battle of hearts and minds in the war on terror (and yes, I acknowledge you believe I'm "Anti-American" [sic] for making this observation ([1]). DOCUMENTERROR 23:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

More rearranging of comments[edit]

I'm bringing this to your attention as you've been party to the issue before. Legacypac has been cautioned innumerable times about rearranging comments. He's at it again in this thread. [2] While this doesn't, obviously, rise to the same level of severity as his blanking and moving of pages or personal attacks, it is still a real chore to constantly monitor each of his many ANIs to make sure one's own comments aren't being moved around to change their meaning. I apologize for bringing this directly to you but it seemed preferable to cluttering up his latest ANI with even more confusingly tangential issues. WP falls apart pretty quickly once the stability of one's own edits is no longer viable. A lot of us are at our wit's end. DOCUMENTERROR 22:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd also like to note, in response to my leaving the above note on your Talk page, LP has - as per MO - gone into "attack" mode and has immediately started dropping claims around the Wiki that I'm engaging in "outrageous personal attacks" [sic] against him (but, as also per MO, not informing me of any of these accusations he's spreading). [3] As you know, immediately spreading rumors about other editors is his pattern response when the question of his combative interaction style is broached.
I have voluntarily avoided any article in which LP is a regular for months (IOW, against my better judgment, I let him chase me off) due to this "take no prisoners" style of editing on all ISIL related topics, and his unwillingness to work in a methodical manner (you, Kkj11210 and others have previously asked him not to blank or move pages during the middle of a RfC, and he did it again just this week [4]). However, in reviewing his edit history it appears this has not spared Skookum1, GregKaye, Greyshark09, Corriebertus, and numerous others from this toxicity. DOCUMENTERROR 23:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I recently raised issue with regard to a recent good faith use of archive top by Legacypac on my talk page but this was reverted at early opportunity. GregKaye 23:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, C&P wrong editor - my bad. DOCUMENTERROR 23:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Apparently as "pay back" for "telling" that he had been rearranging the comments of other editors again, LP has now dragged me to ANI for the fourth time. I should have learned my lesson last time, bit my lip, and just let him rearrange and edit others comments however he sees fit. DOCUMENTERROR 09:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yellow Box edit[edit]

Just a quick question - did I insert my comment into the middle of LPs? According to this dif he had a 5 ":::::" comment ending in the phrase "thank-you very much" at 19:53 followed by his sig. My comment was specifically in response to that comment and so was indented with 6 "::::::" There was an entirely separate comment he made (separate as it had 0 colons and a unique sig at 17:43) immediately after his 5 colon comment. [5]. Note the threading here: [6] DOCUMENTERROR 02:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

ISIL rename request[edit]

Hello PBS, I just came across this [7]. Does this mean it is possible to make a request for move? I would like to put such a request on the 23rd January so your advise would be appreciated. Mbcap (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, could you please advise. I have already asked legacypac's permission for me to discuss him here. I believe I think with good reason as seen here[8]), that legacypac has a conflict of interest that seems to be impacting his work on the ISIL page. With the new move request I think this issue has become even more important.I kindly requested that he withdraw himself from the discussion because he seems to have a real demonstrable conflict of interest. In the diff he says:

"I'd like to see it extended since the world opinion has gone even stronger against legitimizing the group by the "Islamic State" name." (This seems to me like political advocacy.)

::If legacypac had policy based objections I would not do this. I would really like to follow policy and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS states that we not here to right great wrongs. The comment above and also the comment on the move discussion demonstrates that he is not able to seperate his opinion from policy - this is especially seen in the first comment by him on the discussion on the move request. I do not believe he is there to build an encyclopedia but to insert bias into Wikipedia as is clearly demonstrated from the diff and the afremention comment. Can you advise or do I have no basis and shut up? Mbcap (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, is there anything else that I need to do in regards to the requested move. I think it is clear the name I have suggested is the common name now. The only issue is, how do we discuss which one it should be; Islamic state or The Islamic State. Is that something that is within the remit of the current move request and discussion. Also when will the discussion close as my hands are quite tied up till at least the 15th. Sorry to bombard you with questions. Mbcap (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this[9]. It was not intentional, I did not know I had to write that. Mbcap (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

TPG MULTI[edit]

Hi, Thanks for your comment at the TPG talk page. You indicated that it "is" time to talk and started a thread for that purpose. However there is already a discussion underway. Per the TPG point "MULTI" I moved you comment intact and verbatim into that thread. Let's talk, sure, but let's keep it one place so we don't end up herding cats please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest some housekeeping to see if it's ok with you. Now that you've replied in the original thread, there's no reason, IMO, to keep the italics I added when I moved your comment. I propose to self revert my own italics to reduce thread clutter. Ordinarily I would just proceed, but if I did so that would leave your own comment about using a separate thread dangling all by itself. So.... my suggestion is we help the next person to read the thread for the first time by deleting both remarks. If you agree, you have my permission to delete my italic comment about moving yours. Alternatively, I can clean them up if you give the OK. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

wrong link[edit]

The link works for me? DocumentError 11:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know how to locate the page patrol logs. Could you help me? Nevermind - I found it! Sorry. PBS I can only look at an editor's entire patrol log, but am unable to link to a specific patrolling action. DocumentError 11:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

PBS[edit]

PBS - every specific issue I have raised in my ANI is supported by a diff. The only exceptions are 2 instances where an issue relates to a discussion that has been archived, in which case I have linked to the archived discussion as I do not have the technical knowledge of how to link to diffs within a page that has been archived by sigmabot. I do understand that was the reason I was blocked; not that I was claiming things that didn't occur but that I incorrectly linked them. If you could maybe give me some assistance in that area I would be happy to update those two links right now. DocumentError 12:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Some help with possible copyright image on Ibn Kathir[edit]

I have spoken to this user and asked him if the picture he has added here[10] is free to use and he said it is copy righted. I checked the image and it did say it was copyrighted. I have to study so I am unable to get the chance to learn the wikipedia image-use/copy at this moment in time and was hoping you could tell whether to delete the image or let it be. Thank you. Mbcap (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Light Horse Regiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of El Alamein (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) 09:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Concern[edit]

Thanks for reaching out.

To address your points on Anne Hungerford Lee:

1. The article you wrote on Anne Hungerford had already taken the name; I thought the adding of her married name would mark the difference.

2. English nobility: To be a lady in waiting to the queen, you must be of noble rank. The same goes for marrying a Viscount. Her family was of noble station.

3. I don't agree that Tudor Place is an unreliable source. It is used all over Wikipedia. If you show me parameters that list Tudor Place as unreliable, then I'll remove it. Until then, it's a common practice. Also, I added a book with matching information ahead of the TP source. The TP one just had an easier layout, but they both match.

4. The names are not messed up. Lucy Hungerford married another Hungerford. They were fifth cousins, so her maiden and married name are both Hungerford. That could also be inferred considering the article states Lucy is the daughter of Lucy of Sir Walter Hungerford of Farley.

5. The source for fifth cousins is at the end of the sentence. It is relevant to explain the relationship of the family, and helps explain why Lucy's maiden and married name are one in the same.

6. I didn't know that was a no-no. I'll fix it.

7. The relationship isn't extrapolated. It's common sense. Ex: If person A and person B are brother and sister, and then person A has a daughter "C", it doesn't have to be proven that persons B and C are related. If it can be proven A-B are siblings, and then A-C are parent/child, it's common sense to make the inference that B-C are related.

Also, added the books that I had left off of citations.

--Kbabej (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Confirmation[edit]

All I've sought is to be left alone and free from unjustified accusations. I'm planning to continue to ignore DocumentError unless/until he launches another personal attack on me. If that happens it shall be no burden to restrict the focus to then current issue. Thanks for your intervention and have a happy day. Legacypac (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for striking your comments as requested at the end of the ANI. Please inform me if there is any problematic interaction between the two you before it escalates. -- PBS (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure thing. I'm even thinking about ignoring the personal attacks below. Legacypac (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

In ref to the ANI[edit]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive868#Harassment

A note - I appreciate that wasting administrators' times with "voluminous complaints will not endear" me to them. I wish similar consideration had been afforded me with respect to the 19-diff ANI lodged against me last week, or the 4 prior ANIs that same editor shotgunned at me all without action. My block log might have avoided being permanently marked because of something I did (not provide correct diffs) when trying to defend myself against an ANI that should never have been filed against me. That said, two questions for clarification -

  • With respect to your note that "I would also advise DocumentError to continue to stay away from the pages covered by the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant for the next six moths," I think that is sound advice. Is it correct to assume that advice applies to both myself and Legacypac, or is this a punitive measure being applied only on me? As you can see by looking at my edit history, I have never had any conflict with any other editor except one. But that one editor with whom I have had a conflict has a long and colorful history of combative relations with many other editors on WP that have resulted in numerous final warnings [11], [12],[13], [14], [15], [16], [17] (truncated to seven examples for purposes of brevity). It would therefore be extremely insulting, albeit I'm sure unintentionally, if we are not mutually advised to steer clear of each other, instead of me simply being told to give Legacypac a wide berth or to run and hide if I see him in the cafeteria at lunch.
  • You said There are also one involuntary constraint: If either of them bring an ANI against the other in future neither of them is to refer to perceived wrongdoings of the other before the closure time of this ANI. I enthusiastically accept this as it is what I have been repeatedly requesting since I became the subject of this ANI shopping campaign. I just wish this had been applied months ago so the situation might not have descended into the nastiness that ensued. I have only two requests:
-First, I would request that, (a) if Legacypac [or me] violates the proscription you have applied and diffs to intercourse we have had prior to 13JAN2015 you guarantee you will immediately close the ANI on becoming aware of it, that I will not be required or expected to reply or participate in it, and that my lack of reply will not cause me to be blocked nor will my lack of response in any other way be held against me, (b) if Legacypac refers to my ethnicity (or related topics such as religion, creed, nationality, etc.) or declares me to be "anti-American," I be permitted to reference his past comments in order that this not be treated as an one-off slip, (c) if Legacypac again patrols or posts on my talk page I be permitted to reference his past history of using the patrolling feature for purposes of "grave dancing" so that claims of ignorance can be properly and contextually evaluated.
-Second, on accepting these conditions I will no longer intervene to provide support or comfort to new editors being torn apart by Legacypac, as I did with respect to the "are you a child?" comments that prompted LP to file his most recent ANI against me. If I observe such behavior can I call your attention to it so that you might provide new editors some welcoming assistance - even just a kind and simple affirmation that things get better?

DocumentError (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @User:DocumentError: Glad to see that your parents have allowed you to edit again. You ought to revert this edit.

This voluntary agreement made public on the ANI is not open to negotiation you either take it or reject it. If you reject it, the consequences of that are unpredictable (do yo know anything about Game Theory and the prisoners dilemma? if not I suggest you learn). Do you accept the offer or reject it? -- PBS (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand it's not open for negotiation, I'm just asking for clarification. I do understand the subtext of your post, that if I do not accept it I will be immediately blocked for filing an ANI against someone who has filed 4 against me without repercussion. At this point, as my WP career is completely wrecked anyway, I do feel I have the luxury to stand for principles, though wiki-martyrdom is admittedly my last choice. And yes, I am familiar with the prisoner's dilemma. As you probably know, my people are as opposed to gambling as we are to the Great Satan, women playing football, and uncarpeted flooring. (edit - thanks for the notice about my template; that's embarrassing) DocumentError (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
(1) I have no idea who you or "your people" are and I have no wish to know as it is not relevant to this proposed agreement. (2) The prisoners dilemma as nothing to do with the gambling (as you would know if you had bothered to read it). (3) Your account will not be immediately blocked if you do not accept the offer: I wrote in the ANI (did you not read it?) "If either party does not agree then I will bring an ANI to allow the community to decide what to do." (4) You have not answered the question: will you keep to the voluntary agreement? -- PBS (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I read the ANI. (1) In it you said it had BOOMERANG'ed badly against me. You made no similar comment about a BOOMERANG in the preceding ANI against me in which 6 uninvolved editors opined, 5 of whom said there was nothing egregious in Legacypac's report, and 3 of whom endorsed my observations of LP's behavior. IOW, that ANI had a consensus of the community (with the exception of one very verbose editor) decide there was nothing egregious in LP's latest report against me and that my counter-claims were positively founded. The result of that community discussion? My block, imposed unilaterally and without warning. Is it not to be expected I would take it as fait accompli that the reopening of the ANI will result in my block, most likely an indefinite one, in the wake of that precedent? (2) I cannot be seriously expected to respond to a proposal that involves a topic ban on me from a topic I'm not involved in editing (ISIL). The only thing accomplished by topic banning someone from a topic they're not editing is to humiliate that editor.
Again, this entire situation over the last week has a definite and traceable starting point: I objected to Legacypac bullying yet a new editor with name calling, the latest in a long and established pattern of behavior that has been the subject of repeated and loud objections (as detailed in the diffs in my ANI and elsewhere). There's no way I'm going to apologize for doing the right thing. If you want to block or ban me like you've done other editors who have crossed LP, while continuing to issue him final warning after final warning, you'll have to do it without my seal of approval. I expect to be off WP for awhile so goodnight and good luck. DocumentError (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
User:DocumentError In constructing this voluntary agreement I did not pluck the prohibition on editing ISIL articles out of thin air. I included the ISIL prohibition because of two edits you made to your talk page in an interchange with me (12:14, 6 January 2015‎ and 12:53, 6 January 2015) in which you say that of your own free will you had been avoiding ISIL articles for the last 90 days, I have simply extend that as it keeps you out of an area that you and I know Legacypac is interested in. There are over 4 million other pages to choose from, so better that you choose some of those than you waste more time on issues like this. I am closing down this conversation. You are not to post anything else to this section other than "Yes. I agree to the voluntary restraints." or "No. I do not agree to the voluntary restraints.". You have until 20:43, 14 January 2015 (24 hours from your first posting to this section) to give one of those two answers. If you do not reply I will block you account until you do give an answer. As I wrote when closing the ANI#Harassment if you reply "No" then "I will bring an ANI to allow the community to decide what to do." -- PBS (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Tudor Place[edit]

You had left a message on my page about fixing an article that you "didn't own". I removed Anne Hungerford Lee from that article. Also, as I stated, the Tudor Place link was backed by another matching source, and the article in question (Anne Hungerford Lee) will soon be deleted anyway, rendering it a moot point for me. If you want to follow up with that discussion on the board, by all means, but I've unfollowed it and don't have an interest in discussing it further. I've removed your discussion from my talk page because we don't have anything more to discuss IMO. If you need something, feel free to reply here, like I had previously asked. --Kbabej (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 15 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Your advice needed[edit]

Hello again PBS, I have just got a comment from an IP on my talk page. It is right at the bottom. The IP accuses me of being another user who I presume is banned and details his entire personal information. I personally feel very sorry for the user in question as no matter why he was banned, this behaviour is not warranted. What should I do as these allegations have been following me around for a while. Mbcap (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap, admin Dougweller has been dealing with the issue, so I will leave it in Dougweller's capable hands. -- PBS (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I am bringing these two edits to your attention because in previous cases they have been deleted by the admin Dougweller. The edits are; [[18]] and [[19]]. I have deleted the offending parts from the post and kept the rest on my talk page. Regards Mbcap (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Verify credibility |reason= parameter now functional[edit]

At this edit:

{{Verify credibility|certain=y|self published website; and Jorge H. Castelli is not an expert|date=January 2015}}
[unreliable source]

should be

{{Verify credibility|certain=y|reason=self published website; and Jorge H. Castelli is not an expert|date=January 2015}}
[unreliable source]

Trappist the monk (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring on Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map[edit]

Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map (history) has had edit warring between User:Lindi29 talk and User:8fra0 talk, both of whom appear to have violated the 1RR rule though if you treat the pairs of edits as one only Lindi29 has violated it, though really two reverts within 1 minute could be considered to be the same revert. Lindi29 has not been informed of community sanctions, but 8fra0 has (diff). I found no evidence on the module talk page or their talk pages of any attempt between them to discuss their reverts. For future reference, was this the right place to post, and are non-administrators allowed to inform users of community sanctions? John Smith the Gamer (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Light Horse Regiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Johnston (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) 09:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk 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:
  • |first=Michael A.R. |date=January 2008 |origyear=2004 |title=Howard, Thomas, third duke of Norfolk (1473–1554 |id=13940}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Edmund Beaufort (died 1471) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "[]"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:
  • {{harvnb|Pollard|1901a|p=157}} cites ''Cal. Patent Rolls'', 1461-5, pp. 29, 32; Stubbs, iii. 196).</ref> 3rd Duke received a general pardon on 10 March 1463,<ref>{{harvnb|Pollard|1901|p=157}}
  • the defeat of the Lancastrians in 1461, Edmund was brought up in France with his younger brother [[[[John Beaufort, Marquess of Dorset|John]], and on the execution of his elder brother [[Henry

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Question[edit]

I don't know where to request general sanctions enforcement for the SCW/ISIL sanctions, so I thought I'd ask you. Would you consider implementing a new move moratorium at the ISIL page? It seems we are right back to where we were before the last moratorium: frequent move requests with no real purpose, to titles that have been proposed many times already. It is really rather absurd. The current RM should be allowed to finish, but that should be enough for months. RGloucester 00:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henry Beaufort, 3rd Duke of Somerset, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Northampton (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) 09:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Curious[edit]

Curious why you pinged me at my talk page about articles I moved last September when it was basically a vandal revert, but phrased more diplomatically. Montanabw(talk) 22:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Good point, of course, then there are some people I shall not mention by name who like to make bold moves and semi-salt the old location so it can't be moved back without an RM and a bunch of drama. (sigh). Montanabw(talk) 22:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Breaking the 1RR[edit]

Hi PBS,This editor has break the 1RR.here.Lindi29 (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Suspected 1RR violation[edit]

Assuming that the 1RR applies to 24 hour periods, on this page the edit at 13:36 today may have violated the 1rr, as they previously reverted at 21:18 yesterday. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

My edit[edit]

I added some material which previously had been removed by some editors in the ISIL article which I found to be significant.They reverted my edit and replaced the paragraph in the sexual violence and slavery section with something like "According to ISIL, fighters are allowed to have sex with adolescent girls to discipline slaves by beating. ISIL also allows fighters to trade sex slaves as long as they are not pregnant by their owner"(The editors english is bad) instead of the proper english "It says that fighters are allowed to have sex with adolescent girls, and that it is also acceptable to beat and trade sex slaves. On the contrary, it says it is permissible to beat a slave so long as it's a form of disciplinary beating, and also that it is forbidden for fighters to hit the female captives in the face. However, the pamphlets says a woman can't be sold if she becomes impregnated by her owner. " I request you to take necessary action.Hand snoojy (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Like ban you as a SOCK of User:Absolution provider 1999 aka User:Update stormtrooper for that is who you are right? Legacypac (talk) 08:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
The edit in question has been previously removed for soapboxing and therefore being against consensus. Also, this shows your 02:30 edit was a revert. Having reverted at 15:25, this violates the 1RR. If you are, as I suspect a sock, what you are doing is not going to lead to the inclusion of the material. Everyone is now on guard for the slightest trace of POV pushing. In short, your disruptive editing is actually pushing the tone of the article away from including material of the type you seem to wish to include. It is against the rules of wikipedia to use multiple accounts to get around blocks and bans and is counter-productive. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Berlin[edit]

PBS: your name has been brought up on the talk page for this article. I leave it to you whether you wish to reply. Kierzek (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Prince of Ligne[edit]

Thank you very much for your explanation and advice regarding the edits that I had made to the article Prince of Ligne. I greatly appreciate your clarification that those sources are not considered to be reliable sources, so I apologize for making reference to those. I will correct that by removing those sources from the article. Thanks for your understanding.

- Blairall (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

House of Beaufort-Spontin[edit]

Thank you for your comments regarding the edits that I had made to the articles House of Beaufort-Spontin and Frederic Augustus Alexander, Duke of Beaufort-Spontin. I now understand your point that the source I used is not considered to be a reliable source. As a result, I have now taken a lot of time to do some more thorough research and find reliable sources for support. I have posted my findings at Talk:House of Beaufort-Spontin for your review and comments.

- Blairall (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin[edit]

Regarding the recent reverts by users who never edited the article, the text that was reverted was actually formulated by you[20]; you argued that it should be added to the footnotes. I know your opinion on Senyavskaya, but you were not against adding the text if it would be in the footnotes.
The other part that was reverted was added back in 2009 by another user[21] and there was a long discussion on this back then.
So the text was not added by me and these reverts are just disruptive. -YMB29 (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles[edit]

...is back, with a vengeance (not that I believe he ever left) as I'm sure is no surprise to you. Mannyfabolous is the latest incarnation, while Franzy89 is used to insert photos of royal portraits, doubtless with no regard for copyright. And I still believe that Enredados is LPC (who says his real name is Tom). Not to mention anons whenever he can't be bothered to open a new account or revive an old one. I presume that he's also still editing Wikipedias in several other languages as well, despite blocks and bans. Just thought I ought to tell someone that he continues to generate vast amounts of crap for others to clean up... FactStraight (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not LPC, and my name is José Manuel, not Tom.

--Enredados (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps not. So where are the reliable sources for the additions to articles you always omit -- especially those you've made to Carlo Emanuele Ruspoli, 3rd Duke of Morignano and his relatives? Clearly you've just shown that you do understand English well enough to understand requests for references. FactStraight (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, i have no idea who is "Louis Philippe Charles", but I assure that's not me. I just made a mistake with the photos, i'm new and had no idea of copyright violation. --Mannyfabolous (talk) 7:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible violation of 1-revert rule.[edit]

User Lindi29 has a long history of violating the guidelines on Wikipedia. Recently, on Februrary 13 he made two reverts (manual opposite editing) at 16:42 and 16:47 respecetively on the Iraqi insurgency detailed map. These reverts effect two users, one of which is myself. Less than 4 hours later user Lindi29 made an additional revert at 21:36. He quickly reverted his own revert this time when he realised that he had already reverted twice the same day. Mozad655 (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

At 14:56, 14 February 2015‎ and 15:02, 14 February 2015‎, the same user again made a double revert, which is less than 24 hours after the double revert mentioned above. Also this time, his' reverts were done manually and it effects the work of two editors. It seems that he is finding a loophole in the 1-revert-rule by reverting manually. Mozad655 (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Mozad655 I didn't made any rv look carefully I provided sources I didn't rv anybody.Lindi29 (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mozad655 I have looked at the history Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map. An edit followed by a revert (with no other editor's edit in-between), counts as no edit (see WP:3RR for an explanation). So as far as I can tell Lindi29's edits are:

Without looking at the content the timings mean that they are outside the 24 hours 1RR limit. -- PBS (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@PBS But the timing is within 24 hours? The time from first revert at 16:47 to second revert the next day at 14:56 is 22 hours.Mozad655 (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You are right, my mistake. But too much time has passed so I will not be taking any action and so will not look into it further. -- PBS (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Victoria League, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victoria Gardens (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) 08:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Seems that you are perfect in your efforts on Wikipedia! Keep it up! Damirgraffiti |☺What's Up?☺ 01:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Reference style[edit]

Hi. I meant the templates; I think that the more templates and coding we use, the less people will want to (or be able to) contribute to WP. I added the parentheses around the dates: if you insist on including the date in a short cite when there is only one book by that author (a make-work project, IMO), then we ought to make them look neat and easy to see. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Breach of 1 revert per 24 hour rule by another editor[edit]

The editor "JapanerRusse" is new to the map and has since contioniusly undone edits that were otherwise very well sourced using multiple independent sources. I have informed him that his source is biased and heavily outnumbered. I have tried to start a dialogue to resolve the issue, but he is not responding. First revert was at 09:12, 24 February 2015‎ and second revert was 14:52, 24 February 2015‎. In both cases he reverted well sourced edits concerning the towns of Taza Khurmatu and Daquq, and changed them from joint controle to only kurdish using an unlawful (partial) source. Mozad655 (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)