User talk:PBS/Archive 6

1 2 3 4 5

Ottoman Empire

Dear sir; I was hoping you would consider this proposal. Under the "World War I", "Middle Eastern theatre of World War I" is listed. If you look where the battles had been performed, also between the armstice to "threaty of serves" most the allies were in the anatolian lands. That name does not really cover the material presented under it. If you consider this proposal, either we should rename that to "Ottoman Front" or break it into peaces. I'm specifically objecting the "Caucasus Campaign" and "Dardanelles Campaign" listed under the Middle Eastern, even if you like to interperet that word liberally. --user:Tommiks

"enemy combatants", "illegal combatants", "unlawful combatants" and "unprivileged belligerents"

I noticed that "enemy combatants" has been redirected to "unlawful combatants".

The Bush administration has had a gradual evolution of the terms they have used to refer to the Guantanamo detainees and their other extrajudicial detainees in the "Global War on Terror". Some here on the wikipedia seem to think that "enemy combatants", "illegal combatants", "unlawful combatants" and "unprivileged belligerents" can all be used interchangeably.

I don't agree. I suspect that the evolution of terms reflects a strategy among the spin doctors, behind the scenes. The wikipedia entry for "enemy combatants" has about twenty articles that link to it.

I've looked for, and have not found, an authoritative external source that decodes the evolution of terms US spokesmen have used. I think you tried to make the point that the set of "enemy combatants" includes both lawful combatants, who qualify for the Geneva Convention protection of POW status, and war criminals, or mercenaries, who do not qualify for POW status.

I do not think that "enemy combatant" should be redirected to "unlawful combatant". I think the wikipedia should have a short dispassionate article that distinguishes between the other terms.

I suspect that some of those twenty links to enemy combatant really should have linked to one of the other terms.

What do you think? -- Geo Swan 20:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It is like you read my mind. -- Geo Swan 23:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

template

"Template:RAF WWII Strategic Bombing" - like it, applied it to some of the articles GraemeLeggett 13:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be one for the "RAF WWII Air defence of the UK" which could then link together the principle action (BoB), the aircraft and the technology Chain Home, AI radar etc. I'd like to use the Strategic bombing one as a basis. Any opinion on the matter?GraemeLeggett

Thanks

Thanks for the cleanup of "Bombardment of Pforzheim". Well done. user:Hild

Third opinion

Please see Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements on Talk:Crime against humanity#Allied crimes against humanity. Seems best to get a disinterested third party to have a look at this one as you and I are unlikely to come to an agreement on this issue without help. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to find a solution. As there were already third people at the pages who did reasonable edits I do not quite see why you rush to an extra wiki page without ever having tried to ask people at the articles' pages or having made use of my talk page, but everyone as he likes. Get-back-world-respect 22:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Your third opinion (actually technically it's a fourth opinion) has been given. Please see talk page. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

football

The Victorian Rules folk are trying to claim that Aussie Rules is an Australian variety of the game when it is very distinctly a Victorian variation of football and was codified in Victoria many years before the beginning of Australia. If you share the same opinion I would love for you to come to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Football and give your opinion.

All the best

04:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Licinius

Hi Philip. Amusing to see Licinius desperately trying to rally support. He doesn't seem to have grasped that "football" is not "a game"; it is a name that is applied to many games. Or, similarly, that for something to be called "Australian", it does not have to be pursued by every single person in Australia. Grant65 | Talk 04:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BDAbramson T 03:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Arb Com.

I'd like you to voice your side of the story of the GBWR dispute at the pending Arbcom request. WP:RFAR. Thank you. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Chadian-Sudanese conflict

A long time ago you voted against moving the page to Chadian-Sudanese War. You might want to reconsider your vote, based on new information documented in the latest Human Rights Watch report on the situation. Yesterday French troops were deployed in Borota, Chad to fight Sudanese militias[1] and the Janjaweed, Sudanese military, and RDL rebels apparently worked together to "empty villages" in eastern Chad. At least over 1,000 people have died, and the conflict is definitely not over despite the signing of the Tripoli Accord. I am urging other users to do the same. KI 00:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)