User talk:Major Bonkers

Meltdown

Do you happen to know what happened here? (it's supposed to be red) Anynobody 02:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Bit of a strop, I expect. I've noticed that some people blank their User pages as a form of pissed-off protest (eg. Guy) and others seem to be under the bizarre delusion that, in not posting a User page, they are somehow saving Mr. Wales a vast sum in server-hosting charges.

See also: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC/Proposed_decision. As far as I can work out, someone called Tony Sidaway referred to Bishonen as a 'bastard bitch from hell'. He did this on the Admin IRC, and a whole load of Bishonen-enthusiasts, whose names will be wearisomely familiar, then took it upon themselves to vandalise the corresponding Wikipedia article, Wikipedia:IRC_channels/wikipedia-en-admins - in other words, doing themselves exactly what the rest of us are always told not to do. It's all up before the ArbCom, who, seem to be adopting a bit of fudge for the resolution of this latest outbreak of cretinism; the obvious judgment would be a de-SysOp-ing of any Admin found to have engaged in naughtiness, but that's not happening. This is Giano's 4^h. ArbCom in eighteen months.--Major Bonkers (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult to believe that we're to listen and respect such a bastion of rational self control. Though it does make actions like blocking someone out of the blue without warning or resenting those who disagree with her much easier to understand.

These are strange times where I'm finding it difficult to understand why people do what they do. Giano must be some sort of masochist, I can't think of a recent arbcom case that actually resolved anything so being involved in yet another case seems a bit, odd.

Speaking of weird things people do, did the Cruiser make any news in your area regarding the video of him speaking about Scientology and their legal actions to get it nixed from the web? (I assume the biography did.) Anynobody 01:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, my own take is that some people take Wikipedia far too seriously; the puerile palimpest that runs alongside the actual articles - the various Talk pages, AN/I, ArbCom, etc. - is generally so stupid that it - it seems to me - actually discourages anyone with any sense or maturity from contributing. My feeling about Lloyd's of London is that it is a place where any honest man should be ashamed to say that they do business, and my feeling about WP is rather similar. Most of us have got better things to do than waste our time with somebody else's out-of-control children.

During the Troubles ArbCom, someone explained to Rockpocket how they had managed to track down one of the participant's (W. Frank's) address, because he had used his real identity; they had had to go through a number of reasonably complicated steps to work it out. Rockpocket was astonished that anyone would bother to go to the effort, and I have to say that I agree with him: it strikes me as completely bizarre.

Regarding Giano, he pops in for a chat over here every so often; I've nothing against him - he's always been polite to me (if forceful) - but the relationship that he has with the ArbCom doesn't seem particularly healthy. I suspect that they rather need each other.

By the way, I have added some links to photographs in our recent discussion which is now in my archive; I'm too idle to drag the whole thing out, but you'll find links to our esteemed politicians making clear their contempt for the rest of us. As for the Cruiser, see: Tom Cruise compared to Joseph Goebbels; of course, in one important respect this comparison is completely false! --Major Bonkers (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, there are quite a few people who definitely take it way more seriously than they should. I've seen more than one meltdown where a person swears off ever contributing here again and is back sooner or later anyway. (If you watch User talk:Jimmy Wales long enough you'll see a few of them. Here's one that looks ready to go critical soon User talk:Jimmy Wales#Your Lack of Involvement on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Projects) I feel embarrassed for them, choosing to flip out in such a public forum over essentially nothing.

I have nothing against him either, actually I feel like he is generally misunderstood. (Whatever the case, he didn't really want to be on the arbcom even if he doesn't realize it yet.)

Wow, the Goebbels aspect is even more creepy, when reading their reply: ... urging other people to become involved in similar humanitarian activities to the betterment of all. After all, the Nazis only wanted "help" the rest of the world too. (They'd of been better off either saying nothing or saying, "Yeah, he likes being a Scientologist..." instead of suing to have it removed and implying the good of human kind is involved.) Anynobody 08:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find the link to Herr Wales' Talk page - I expect some helpful Admin has 'oversighted' the rant in question.

You're probably interested in more fallout from The Cruiser: Hackers wage web war on Scientologists. I can't help feeling that he should worship something more normal, like Great Cthulu, for example. But why would anyone pay any attention to his religious proselytising, or his political views, come to that? He's only a hack actor, not particularly well-educated, and his views are no more valid that anyone else's --Major Bonkers (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely agree with you on the unimportance of the Cruiser's views, (except on oral care, the man has great teeth); I've never been a big Brad Pitt fan but he did earn my respect when some reporter asked him about his views on Tibet several years ago. He said something like "I'm an actor, who gives a fuck what I think about that?"

On the oversighted rant, I wonder if he ever bothers to read what others throw away or even knows it's going on. Anynobody 05:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I took your advice

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law in Star Trek (second nomination). Tim Vickers (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, although I'm not sure that you have taken my advice, which is to leave well alone.

As I say, my experience of these !votes and 'debates' is that they almost always end up pissing people off and generally cause more trouble than they're worth. To that extent I've become an 'inclusionist', although with the obvious exceptions of hoax and/or malicious articles. Whilst the subject of Law in Star Trek is certainly not to my taste, I have to recognise that someone has gone to a lot of work to produce it. I see that my other favourite example of misapplied labour, the Murloc (a creature from the World of Warcraft computer game), has also bitten the dust. In fact, if you are inclined, I suggest, the entire List of species in fantasy fiction could be reviewed 'with extreme prejudice'!

I suspect, in general terms, the problem is that some of the younger contributors enjoy editing articles such as these and, mutatis mutantis, deleting 'boring' articles, such as those of a 16h. century provincial farmer, and those of us of 'more mature years' have editing interests which are exactly the opposite. The end result is that you end up with a bizarre agglomeration of trivia rather than the 21t. century equivalent of the great Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition.

Anyway, although I don't propose to insert myself into the !vote, it looks to be shaping up into a most entertaining battle, so I shall certainly keep an eye on it! Good luck.--Major Bonkers (talk) 12:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

PS - I suppose this is a 'personal attack', but I really can't see why DGG can claim that Simon Dodsworth is OR ([...] I think the primary sources given represent the whole of the information available, and the subject has been discussed in no secondary sources at all.) and that Law in Star Trek isn't (This is a compilation of material sourced from the primary source in an obvious fashion, and thus not OR.). That's a bit Humpty Dumpty-ish to me; an example, perhaps, of policies and essays being used to support the editor's subjective opinions of worth.--Major Bonkers (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but we are all the prisoners of our POV, the best we can expect is that others will make us aware of our biases and assumptions. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I do hope they don't. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ha, ha! Let the war begin! Onwards, sons of James Tiberius Kirk! (I expect that they will win, simply on the grounds that there are more of them.)--Major Bonkers (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I thought your response above was quite thoughtful. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

For no reason at all

I felt it would be a good idea to address anyone's concerns about why some tragic events are called "massacres" here, just in case anyone was wondering. It's because the sources call them massacres, not because the Major says they are. If someone feels an equally tragic event should have the same label, all that's necessary is a source calling said event a massacre. For example, one might wonder why the Dublin and Monaghan bombings made it on the List of massacres since it's title calls it a bombing. Well indeed it was a bombing, but according to The Guardian it was a bomb massacre. In short, should anyone be concerned with these issues, it's not our opinions that matter so much as what the sources have to say. Anynobody 05:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the link - I'd have missed it if you hadn't spotted it. I think that I agree with you; I looked again this morning at the list, and it seems extraordinary that various other massacres aren't there: the Holocaust being the most obvious, the 1930s Stalin-engineered famine in the Ukraine, and Mao Tse Tung's 'Great Leap Forward' and 'Cultural Revolution' (which, incidentally, are estimated to have killed 60 million people - 10 times the amount in the Holocaust) are all missing. Is Pol Pot's 'Killing Fields' in there? And what about the Siege of Jericho and (my own bug-bear) the Kitos War?

What ought to be a simple disambiguation page is, instead, a snake-pit of nationalist POV-pushers. My massacre's bigger than your massacre! --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:List_of_massacres#Change_of_Direction.3F. Tyrenius (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I can recognise a poisoned chalice when I see one! As Samuel O'Goldwyn said, 'Include me out'! --Major Bonkers (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Have one on me: Major Ity. Tyrenius (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have to admit I laughed. But what a bloody awful pun!--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

BLAH!

Thanks for pointing out my gaffe, Major Bonkers, I just had the quote running through my head but couldn't remember where it came from, and googled the quote, and this was the first hit that came up. [1]. That'll teach me to trust WikipediaGoogle ;) SirFozzie (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Sir F., I just couldn't stop myself! Not that you'd know from Wikipedia, but there's more to Ireland than the Potato Famine, the Troubles, and Massacres (there's Gunniness, leprechauns, the Blarney stone, Molly Malone, Bailey's Irish Cream, shamrocks, Irish Elk, wolfhounds, and stew). --Major Bonkers (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Famous majors

Hello. Would you be averse to the addition to your user page of Major Boredom, adjutant to General Apathy, as made famous by BF5's "Battle of Who Could Care Less‎"? --Sturm 00:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes please! ( [...] as made famous by [...] ?)--Major Bonkers (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Major

I have just joined and was following a trail of user pages. Yours was the most entertaining I have seen. I would not have dared put the one about the foxes, does it not get vandalised by black-hoodie wearing hunt sabbies? I am still working out how you do the 'user boxes', so as to put something very silly on my page. The gay orgy bit was priceless. Next stop Kittybrewster page as you say she (he?) helped out with yours. Best. West one girl (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

PS I 'borrowed' your user box thing and adapted it as you can now see on my talk page. I kept the 'Dame Shirley' one, however. Perhaps there should be a separate user category for this? West one girl (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Funny? I'm deadly serious. As for plagarism - words fail me! (Replied on your Talk page.) --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong quote

I much prefer this one:

The David Lauder one has been categorically denied by the editor in question. It seems to me that Domer48 should either go for a checkuser or WP:AGF and let the matter drop.

Good advice wasn't it? How about an addition to your userpage - Major Fuckup perhaps? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you are making. If it is that David Lauder has acted foolishly in using two accounts, I'm not going to disagree with you; so, indeed, did your friend. If it's that I was somehow stupid in not spotting vote-rigging in an AfD, I point you to what I actually wrote: 'I saw no evidence of vote-rigging or concert-parties on the 'British' side'. If you read that carefully, it remains true: I didn't see any evidence of it and nor, incidentally, was any produced. Regarding my quotation, you've also edited out the highly relevant preceeding section: *Point 3: Domer48 has provided two diffs which allege abusive sockpuppetry. [...] I stand by (the entirety of) what I wrote because I draw a distinction between abusive sockpuppetry and using multiple accounts for valid reasons: as W. Frank and Kittybrewster felt obliged to do.

Whilst you're here, I can't really see the point in constantly picking at scabs. According to your own account, the root of the problem was the Diarmuid O'Neill AfD, which took place over a year ago. Since then we've had the ArbCom and things are more-or-less settled. Is it really desirable to stoke the embers in this unproductive way? If it is, we're going to be arguing back and forth until Judgment Day. Goodbye. --Major Bonkers (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Two accounts?! Christchurch, David Lauder and Chelsea Tory - that's three according to my rudimentary maths skills? And I don't consider my quoting any more selective than your reading. For example you claim Domer48 should have asked for a checkuser, but here is where the original sockpuppetry in question was discussed. I'll paste the relevant parts here to be on the safe side:

Unfortunately the evidence does appear fairly conclusive that you voted twice in that AFD, David Lauder. I would counsel you not to do so again. In fact, I'd recommend that everyone involved be on their best behaviour. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this was the result of a checkuser showing it to be very likely indeed that the IP edits and David Lauder (talk · contribs) edits before and after the IP edits were from the same person........Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You would agree that although then (July 2007) you hadn't seen any evidence of votestacking from the "British" side, you've seen plenty now yes? Note I'm referring to the new checkuser as well, not just those quotes.

As for W. Frank. If he'd chosen to ride off into the sunset and edit articles about Singapore and the like, nobody would be any the wiser would they? However, surely you must admit that he willingly engaged with Troubles editors and carried on the dispute with his new account? You'd agree with that yes? The diffs are in the checkuser to prove it if you really want to disagree?

Now for Kittybrewster. This isn't quite right. I'm sure you'll be pleased to know that Kittybrewster is happily editing Wikipedia. If I wanted to make public the account (or maybe even accounts, who can say?) he was editing using, I could easily do so. But I choose not to, as everyone deserves a second chance. W. Frank had a second chance, yet chose to blow it so I was happy to make sure it was brought to the attention of the relevant people. I'm sure you'll be reading this Kittybrewster, so be sure to bear that in mind won't you?

As for the rest, it depends how you define stoking the embers? I uncovered what I believed to be unacceptable behaviour, a deliberate attempt to votestack using multiple accounts in ArbCom elections. I'm sure, as an English (I assume?) gentleman, you believe in the spirit of fair play? I thought what I saw was grossly unfair, and acted accordingly. Belive it or not I am a fair person. I'm too lazy to track down the diff, but if you check AN you'll also see I was happy for Counter-revolutionary to be unblocked under certain circumstances, rather than campaigning for an indefinite block for him. Never got a word of thanks for that one though! ;) One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm quite keen to log off - it's bath-time for my son and I'm in charge - and I don't really see any great purpose would be achieved by continuing this conversation. Just for the record, I don't check AN/I regularly and so missed the first of the David Lauder discussions to which you refer and only came across the most recent one this morning. I don't think that threatening Kittybrewster, especially on this page, is particularly big of you, especially as he has just as much right to edit as you or I. Can I leave you with one observation: when I read your post, above, it seems to me that you are trying to persuade me or get me to admit that you are right. In some respects you are right - I can particularly appreciate a sense of justice - but, it seems to me, wrong in others. Frankly, however, why should you care what I think about you? Presumably when you look in the mirror you're satisfied that you have acted properly, and, on that basis good luck to you.--Major Bonkers (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's on the most recent AN discussion, bold as brass. Who said I was threatening Kittybrewster? That's a rather dubious interpretation of what I said. It's supposed to be more along the lines of "your secret is safe with me", which it is as I've no intention of making any information public if the account isn't used abusively. My intent was to reassure, not threaten. And as you say, he has just as much right to edit as you or I, providing it isn't disruptively.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Reassurance and paralipsis are easily confused. Choess (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the greeting. Ps, do you know how to give out warnings? This user, User talk:Stwrt, has continually removed sourced information from Lord Torphichen. Thanks, --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice that this chap has a whole load of templates on his User page; it might be that one of them is what you're looking for: Fredrick day. This is also a quite useful page (although in a different context); Template:Who.

If and when you find it, would you mind sticking one on Kittybrewster's Talk page? Delighted as I am to have him back, he's been fiddling around with my additions to Ron Sandler. (Is it only me, or does this man look as though he's wearing a specs, nose, and beard novelty mask? - look closely the next time you see his photograph in the newspaper.) --Major Bonkers (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've got one up now. Yes, he does rather! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Very like a novelty mask. I was seeking to reflect what was written in the article as opposed to your interpretation of it. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WR

The thread in question is still there, you might want to consider registering an account even if you don't want to post. Just a hint.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I find there's quite enough fruitless drama here without going elsewhere for more. On the other hand, I am grateful to Astrotrain because his postings keep me up to date. Oddly enough, at the beginning of the week I was looking for a 'common sense' barnstar for Tyrenius - I'm sure that I had seen it somewhere, but couldn't find it - and I came across a 'rehabilitated' barnstar, which I very nearly posted you-know-where until I thought that it would be seen as a provocation. Moot now. I'm off to post on Rockpocket's Talk page and then bath-time calls. PS - despite all the nice things that they've written about me, perhaps you could please point out to them that I most definitely am not a fan of Guy! --Major Bonkers (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't make me spell it out, it's easy enough to read between the lines of what I just said surely? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't need to spell it out. My attitude is that if it's in plain view, I'll look at it; if I have to exert myself, and especially if my signing-up could be construed as support, I can't be bothered. Given that Rockpocket's already complaining of harassment, posting on Wikipedia Review about him isn't likely to be helpful to anyone. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother, MB. With the exception of a few well meaning souls, most of the regulars over there are genuinely bonkers. There was a thread there recently speculating who I am a sock puppet of, the two prime candidates being Durova and FeloniousMonk (which is kind of amusing, since I don't believe I have ever interacted with either of them). They were also trying to analyse my writing style to determine whether I am British or American. They were entirely wrong on both counts of course, but paranoia colours the mind (thats colour with a "u" for those watching), I suppose.

I just dropped by to note I agree with your comments at AN this evening. Referring to Lauder (the editor) in those terms is bad form. I wasn't aware that was happening, but it shouldn't. Rockpocket 07:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The last panel of 'Roadkill Bill' is unpleasantly accurate

Thank you for yours. Oh dear, as if there isn't enough drama over here, people seek more excitement over there; it looks like more of the same, but even more moronic (if such a thing is possible)! As a declaration of interest, I've previously been accused of running two sock-puppets, MJB and (the now banned) General Peabody.

I've also been giving some thought to the problems of anonymity and sock-puppetry. Starting with anonymity first: I very nearly began my editing career by posting using my real name - thank God I didn't - and swiftly decided against adding an e-mail link. Your own unpleasant experience demonstrates how valuable some form of anonymity is.

On the other hand, of course, we have these great searches for sock-puppets, which take up a huge amount of community time and effort. Under the current arrangements, sock-puppets can never be stopped; in certain circumstances, indeed, they are allowed (eg. editing pornography articles). The ease with which sock-puppets can be created and used to evade blocks and bans means that any effort to uncover them is effectively wasted because the editor can simply pop-up elsewhere and resume where he left off.

Added to this is the shear futility of hunting down sock-puppets: none of us came into Wikipedia with the burning desire to hunt down sock-puppets, yet productive editors are side-tracked into the aberrant behaviour of searching and cross-referencing hundreds or even thousands of Diffs and praised and rewarded for doing so. Try and imagine a conversation with someone who knows nothing about Wikipedia: editing is a collaborative process involving multiple anonymous editors iteratively creating and expanding articles. Fair enough, most people will get that and the altruism behind it. But then try and explain hunting down sock-puppets: 'But I thought anyone could edit?'; 'But you're not blocking accounts used for vandalism, you're blocking accounts used by a User who is disapproved of regardless of his contributions'; 'Aren't you supposed to WP:AGF and be (as much as possible) 'contributor-blind'?'; 'What's to stop him doing it all over again?'

The conclusion that I come to is this: that after a certain time, around when most editors start to work out that they need an archive and add one to their Talk page, there should also be some process whereby they can confirm their identity and, hopefully, avoid all the huge waste of effort, not to say poisoning of what should be a collaborative atmosphere, involved with sock-puppetry allegations and investigations. Uncorroborated anonymity is an idea whose time has been and gone. I think that Wikipedia produces decent articles despite the diverted effort involved in hunting down sock-puppets: the end result of this stupid 'Wiki-drama' is that it acts as a huge turn-off to anyone who comes to be involved in it.

Dealing with your second point, I was a bit disappointed by BrownHairedGirl's description which (I hope!) was more in the way of making her point rather than making a criticism of David Lauder. I have to admit that I'm not an expert on the subject, but British far-right politicians (as opposed to thugs) have a political philosophy of freedom under the law, economic liberalism, and restricted immigration, quoting Edmund Burke rather than their Continental cousins who quote Nietzsche and invade Poland. It came across as a bit weasel-y, I'm afraid.--Major Bonkers (talk) 13:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"yet productive editors are side-tracked into the aberrant behaviour of searching and cross-referencing hundreds or even thousands of Diffs" - actually no. I didn't need to do that, as the evidence accumulated inside two hours was ample. And you are correct that describing DL as a "politician" is bad form, I think "letter writer" is more appropriate personally. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Top Gear (Kings Road)

I agree with your comment. I've added enough stuff to hold off a deletion. Pouncing on new articles with an AfD seems highly inappropriate to me and completely against the founding principles of the project. It might be useful to introduce a guideline that unless an article is clearly vandalism it should be allowed to stand for at least a month before an AfD is started. Much would be gained and nothing would be lost. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 11:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, above, and your intervention on the article and AfD vote. I think that the AfD was very badly advised and, given that it was directed against a new editor's contribution, had the real potential to come across as either bullying or disparagement of West one girl's efforts. I notice that the nominator seems to have a thing about AfD's (see the big red notice on his Talk page), and I'm not convinced at all that what could be seen as a rather aggressive or proactive approach to deleting articles is particularly helpful: it certainly isn't presenting a welcoming face to new editors. There's some comments above, phrased rather pompously, I'm afraid, which set out my thoughts on AfDs in some more detail which you might be interested in. Regarding your proposal, I broadly agree with it; frankly, however, I think that an established editor concerned about something written by a new editor should make an effort to explain and educate that new editor rather than making free with the AfD templates, which is very much an easy option; this sort of thinking is, more-or-less, the purpose behind WP:BITE. I think that we have too many guidelines as it is; everyone knows, or should know, how to behave properly.

I'm fairly sure that one or two Admins keep an eye on this page; perhaps they'll either have a word with the miscreant or take your thoughts on a guideline forward! Thank you again. --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

wikidrama

I am both stupid, and love wikidrama lol! Thanks. I would love to be able to create a userbox. Is it difficult? Special Random (Merkinsmum) 12:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad you liked it! Well, don't make yourself stupider ^{which I don't believe for a moment, by the way} by continuing to read or (worse) post on WP:AN/I!

I made up a lot of the User boxes on my User pages myself, which took a lot of trial and error. However, the source code is still there, if you want to look, and it's simply a case of copying and pasting, and then substituting your own picture and text and, if you like, a different background colour. With your User box, I set up a sub-page, User:Major Bonkers/Wikidrama, which then becomes a template simply by, when linking to it, changing the squared-off brackets ('[' and ']') to the ogeed variety ('{' and '}'). If you click on the 'Edit this page' buttons and take a look at the source code, you'll see how it's done.

Do you think that the chart on the IQ page might be better that the picture of Ali G?

I'm afraid that I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, being entirely self-taught; however, if you'd like some help in your own efforts I'll do my best. (I find the continuous Wiki-drama so dispriting that I'm on a go-slow as far as editing is concerned at the moment until I recharge my batteries.)

Thank you for dropping by - it's good to know that my efforts weren't entirely wasted!--Major Bonkers (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

PS - see: Wikipedia:Userbox Maker. --Major Bonkers (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The Ali G is more funny than a chart IMHO lol he's intrinsically funny. I imagine Homer Simpson as the epitome of stupid, Ali G is more imaginative though. My Other Half just suggested Amy Winehouse. This is assuming you don't want to use an actual picture of a person with Downs Syndrome, but I think such a userbox would be rapidly deleted as not politically correct lol:) Thanks for the tips on making them- I may have to have a go!Special Random (Merkinsmum) 20:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think we could use this [2] :) But w could use this [3]. I still think the Ali G is best :) Special Random (Merkinsmum) 11:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ali G it is then - what a pity we can't get a better picture, though. I think that, on grounds of good taste, I must reject your other pictures!--Major Bonkers (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This user believes AN/I can be useful. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

...but it attracts the wrong sort of people; those WHO LIKE TO SHOUT A LOT, are prone to hysteria, post on the same topic over multiple pages, and get so caught up in the wikidrama that they neglect their useful work in editing for the joy of scoring points over their perceived enemies. Eventually there is often a spectacular departure from Wikipedia as it dawns on these individuals that, actually, no-one really cares about what they think and that they are viewed as a discordant minority.--Major Bonkers (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

PS - Have you seen Tyrenius's new signature? Isn't it awful.--Major Bonkers (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Very true. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive

Dar major, if only you could help me set up an archive page. I really don't have the faintest idea. I'm intrigued by the rat-eating. West one girl (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

PS I followed up the link to the rat-eating article. Very good, only, er, it needs a bit more flesh, as it were. I have a very old book that may have something on this. West one girl (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Major - thank you so much for putting the archiving thing on my talk page. I shall wait with pleasure as all those old items drop off. How did you know I am interested in fashion? Actually, it's the history of the 'Swinging London' period and the King's Road, John Steed and Emma Peel and all that, which I am interested in - but Union Jack coats were all very much part of that weren't they. I think your project runs the risk of unspeakable fashion train wrecks and great care recommended, perhaps consult with your wife at the next board meeting. I know this company has exactly the item you want but you want to avoid looking like an football hooligan. One possibility is vintage clothes shops (e.g. there's a good one at the lower end of the Fulham Rd near the junction with Finborough Rd). They won't have the item in stock but they really know the market, and if you can always get a local tailor to alter it for you. Otherwise it's the proper London tailors and I am sure they will do a good job but it will cost you probably thousands. I think it works better on women on the whole. Although this looks interesting. West one girl (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the link. I was certainly thinking of something a little more distinguished than wet-look plastic, though. The kilts on the same web-site look interesting, especially as they come with a built-in sporran: whoever came up with the idea of an 'all-in-one' is a genius (all the bits and pieces - sporran, kilt pin, and various armament - is terribly easy to lose, especially if you end the evening a little bit drunk).--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Limey!

I was reading up on early relations between our nations and thought I'd get your perspective on what a dumb-ass insult "limey" is, which as you probably know was a reference to the navy's desire for sailors who didn't get scurvy. I imagine the sailors liked the idea too, so someone using that as an insult seems dumb. (Personally it'd be like insulting people for doing something like brushing their teeth. "Ya tooth brushin' bastard!") Anynobody 05:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid that every British schoolchild is (or at least, was) taught that Captain Cook forced his sailors to drink lime juice on his great voyages of exploration. (Although I have read a book recently which suggested that there were earlier captains who pioneered this practice, but he got the historical credit.) The Victorians invented Rose's lime juice, still available today, for the purpose of preventing scurvy without having to carry a supply of fresh citrus fruit. Sir Francis Drake, in his circumnavigation of the world, by contrast, lost half his crew (although he did take a Spanish treasure galleon on the way). He also claimed California (or Nova Albion) for Queen Elizabeth, by the way, so I suppose that it's still technically ours... .

We British, of course, refer to you lot as 'Yanks' without distinction, although that, strictly speaking, only applies to Northerners. It comes out as 'short planks' or 'septic tanks' in cockney rhyming slang.

It's my belief, from what I've read, that Anglo-American relations, particularly in the 1920s, 1930s, and early 1940s, were poor, mostly due to American antipathy to the British Empire and stirred up by the Yellow Press. Winston Churchill (who, of course, had an American mother) did a great deal to improve relations with the Americans; we were lucky that FDR agreed to lend-lease whilst the then Republican party was strongly isolationist. Clearly, in retrospect, we can see that one of FDR's war aims was the weakening or dismantling of the Empire and in that he largely, through accident or design, succeeded. There was a small but influential opinion, by the way, (held by Evelyn Waugh and Alan Clark, amongst others) that Britain should have relaxed on the sidelines of the Second World War after Germany invaded the Soviet Union, and let those two fight it out between themselves; by continuing to wage war, Churchill was undermining the continued existence of the Empire after the war.

You might be interested in the book, 'Nemesis', by Max Hastings; it's all about the war against the Japanese - I think you'd enjoy it.

If you want to see the fur fly, by the way, keep an eye here! --Major Bonkers (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I can totally see calling someone a septic tank as an insult, not a very pleasant thing to be compared to. Being called, in essence, scurvy-free seems like a compliment. "Look at that limey!" reply "Thank you for noticing my bloodless gums. I feel good too :)" compared to "Look at that septic tank!" reply "Are you talkin' to me?" The yanks never came up with any good names for their "traditional" enemies, redcoats and grays. Limey for you, rebs for grays. Oh well, I suppose if I had to choose between cool names for my enemies and victory I guess victory would have to do ;)

Couldn't agree more about American's not giving a damn as the Nazi's, Italians and Japanese decided to expand until it showed up somewhat closer to home. (For the most part, there were some who knew what was really at stake and said so, but like those of us today who felt the Iraqi excursion was a bad idea, were ignored.) I've always felt the same about its attitude toward WWI, not worth worrying about until some Americans were on a torpedoed liner and a pie in the sky telegram was intercepted to Mexico both by Germans, that it became worth our while. (WWI was a prime example of a stupid war, it only accomplished setting up Europe for Hitler and Stalin.)

FDR, I believe, wanted us in the war badly (not so badly as to intentionally let us get "kicked in the balls" at Pearl harbor though). We're all lucky he was President then, however at the same time he did kind of blow it by not seeing Stalin for who he really was which brings me to the leader who did, Churchill. He was awesome, and we were lucky that he was running the show (for most of the war at least) in the UK. He wasn't flawless either of course, but you gotta love a guy who had such a way with words, ...But tomorrow I shall be sober while you will still be ugly. Seriously though I've actually used one of his quotes as a guide for editing here: Never give in — never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Unless a sensible reason can be stated for me to give in, I simply don't :) (Though he probably wouldn't have been my choice for a peace time PM.)

I personally think that while letting the Nazis and Commies slug it out would have been very pragmatic and sensible in the context of the Cold War, it gambles on the Soviets not losing. Had they actually lost, think what would've happened, Germany would have been able to exploit resources and the vast distance of the USSR to create factories well beyond the range of any plane flying from the UK and worse still possibly have been able to enter the Pacific War. Plus, without Stalin to worry about the Japanese could redeploy forces they had to keep in Manchuria to check the Soviets, making things even worse for the Chinese and other Allies in that theater. Of course we can all thank Hitler for thinking himself a general and screwing things up more than once, but still even with his meddling had the Reich been able to fully commit everything against the Soviets I think they had a good chance of winning.

I'll check out Nemesis, recent years have found my interest in the Pacific war increasing. I used to only be interested in the European theater because, whatever else one says about them, the Nazis had cool airplanes, tanks, and ships with interesting stories. (Graf Spee, Tiger tanks, Type XXI uboat and of course the Me-262). Anynobody 04:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, but we had the bouncing bomb and the Tallboy bomb. And the Spitfire, surely the loveliest airplane, especially with the evocative roar of the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine. And the X-craft (powered by a bus engine). It's actually my contention that the British genius in warfare is for cobbled-together bits and pieces and the 'it's a long shot... but it just might work!' mentality. I suspect that we're actually pretty crap at the set-piece battle. The American mentality is to spend huge amounts of expensive effort in killing its enemies and rescuing its own: death by over-bombardment!--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree, our stuff was way better, for the most part and in the end. The British knack for innovation did indeed seem to be the cobbled together type sometimes, but it worked well more than once. We had our own "...kooky, but just might work" ideas too though, like the bat bomb. (Can't forget you folks did create the Merlin which was the final component in what I think was hands down the war's best fighters: The P-51B-C & D Mustangs but did you know the angled flight deck was another British innovation?) I don't know why, the Spitfire doesn't really appeal to me aesthetically as much as the Mosquito, but I have strange taste in "beautiful" aircraft.

death by over-bombardment! I think that sums up American research goals in WW II nicely. Especially considering what, how and when the war finally ended these goals were a factor in all aspects. Anynobody 03:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Bat-bombs - the mind boggles! It's as weird as the plan to make an aircraft carrier out of pycrete. --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Comrade Bean

Is it just me or does the new Russian President look like he could be a close relative of Mr. Bean? Anynobody 04:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure Mr. Bean. He looks like someone, though, I can't just remember who. Time for a new list: People who look like Dmitry Medvedev? His predecessor was supposed to look like Dobby or, more flatteringly, the bridegroom in the Arnolfini Wedding.--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Oi! I dinnough say 'e looked like Bean 'imself, but like a rela'ive or somfin, Uncle Boris Bean ya knob ;) Putin, or rather I should say, Dobby looks like Putin may indeed have provided inspiration but I wasn't aware Jan van Eyck stole his face too ;) Speaking of him though, I seriously doubt Putin had that guy who's name escapes me poisoned with Polonium. Don't get me wrong I wouldn't be surprised if the stuff came from a Russian source, but given the poisons known to be used by the KGB, I don't see why they'd choose something so 1) Toxic to whoever was delivering it 2) easily traceable and 3) took so long to work (weeks), when they could've just poked the guy with an umbrella and he'd of been dead three or four days later. Anynobody 03:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Help citing an example

I was thinking about examples of WP:BLP#People who are relatively unknown and was hoping you'd be able to provide an example well known in your neighbourhood like this one my from mine: I don't keep up with baseball so my details may be wrong, but a couple of years ago during a crucial game for some team, a fan caught a fly ball which was within reach of a player. Because the fan caught it, the ball was determined to be a foul, but had the player caught it the batter would've been out which was desirable for the home team who went on to lose. (If I remember correctly the fans mistake actually may have lost them the game) Anyway, that poor, dumb, bastard seems like a good example of someone who may have gotten news coverage but doesn't warrant an article here to cite when discussing the issue with Americans. Do you know of any poor, dumb, bastards one could cite for y'all? Anynobody 06:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I was reading an article on just this subject in Wired magazine yesterday; see: Scott Brown's 72 Hours on the Long Tail of Celebrity. There's also the chap who tied all those helium balloons to his sun-lounger and floated away over Los Angeles airport (I think that he got an honorary mention in the 'Darwin Awards'). Posh Spice and Paris Hilton are excluded, I suppose, on the grounds that although pointless they are known. Could you, perhaps, include the Admin Guy? It's a bit of a difficult one: people that you have heard of but only so vaguely that you cannot remember their name. It would certainly be a long list! --Major Bonkers (talk) 11:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You're thinking of Larry Walters, who does have an article! And for someone who got plenty of news coverage (mostly about what an odious racist thug he was...) try Matthew Simmons.One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

One Night In Hackney, thank you! Matthew Simmons is almost exactly what I was looking for :) And a thanks to the Major for knowing the baseball guy's name too :) I still plan on calling him "the baseball guy", lest the fact that his name is known derail my argument. Simmons will be called either the soccer or football jerk depending on the audience. (Speaking of the difference in names, I think part of the reason I never got into football as we call it in the US is because only one man on each team can legally kick the damn ball, so who thought to call it football? It'd be like calling soccer handball.) Anynobody 04:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Evening Major!

Dear Major Bonkers,

I don't believe you've had the pleasure of me before, but I've a small matter, well actually rather a long one, which may be of interest to someone of a military and distinguished bearing such as yourself. My cousin Leone Sextus Denys Oswolf Fraudatifilius Tollemache-Tollemache de Orellana Plantagenet Tollemache-Tollemache (an army man like yourself) has been moved with no consensus to a horrid little page with half his names removed as though he were a tradesman, or something of that ilk (dare I say, even an American). Perhaps you and your friends would would like to comment on the talk page. While dear Leon died honourably in the service of his King I have to confess there is little to make him notable other than his name, and it seems a travesty that he should be shorn of it. Do comment, you'll find yourself in most distinguished company.

While I'm here, I was wondering - are you of the Berkshire Bonkers? several of my distant cousins were Bonkers too, but of the Bedfordshire branch. I see you were at Harrow, many of my family were there, you are probably a contemporary of my brother Arsie (Viscount Broadmoor), I beleive you were in Elmfield too. It is so important that "our sort" stick together in these matters. Do drop by my page one afternoon, I usually take Lapsang Souchong at 4.

Your ever, Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you a sockpuppet [4]? Not that I worry very much about these things, but it's nice to know who I'm talking to (good manners, too, I dare say). Happy editing. --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, no, barking up the wrong tree there. However, I take your point, dear Major, but does one ever know who one is addressing on Wikipedia these days. I was only discussing this last month over dinner, at Birkhall, with the dear Duchess of Rothesay, a very close friend. Now do hurry up and go and save poor Cousin Tollemache before he loses any more of his remaining identity. If people like you don't stand up for these bastions of the British identity, who will? Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you still a sockpuppet [5]? You should be careful; one of my regular correspondents takes a rather dim view of them.--Major Bonkers (talk) 08:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to me? Anynobody 05:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm certainly not a Sockpocket, as is well known, and confirmed by Debretts, I am one of the Berkshire Bonkbusters. I can only assume Major that you have been over imbibing on the regimental port. My only wish is to be friendly and join your exclusive set, people like ourselves are an endangered species, we must unite and stick together. I have been ravaged in England by successive Labour taxes (not that I have any faith in that Cameron man either). Then there was that vulgar Mrs Blair (such an unfortunate face, always reminded me of a letter box) setting herself up in opposition to me as 1st lady of London - HM, sweet darlingest Camilla and I were not at all pleased. Then poor dear "David" banished to a Wiki-wilderness, and now I am stung by you too. It's altogether too much to endure at my time of life. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Catherine reminds me of a lady on namesline.com. - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ah Kitty dear, my favourite nephew. Don't even hint about Lloyds to me, the memories are still all too painful. they took the Turners, the Gainsborough and, and of greatest national importance, the Landseer of Pappa's hunting bag - and why? Because a few people elsewhere in the world suffered a few storms and setbacks. what do they know of setbacks? Then I had to suffer that Mary Archer creature coming to visit to investigate my hardships, having the audacity to say a few bare patches on the walls of the Blue Drawing Room were not a huge hardship, compared to others - presumptuous woman, I remember saying to his Late Majesty George V, if he agreed to all the ennobling of "other ranks" this is where it would all end - Lady Archer indeed - oh deepest shudder. I blame that Gordon Brown man entirely - we need strong leadership, if only dearest Winston were still with us - what would he say to all these European people, with stupid names, telling me what colour to paint the Dining Room walls, and even what to do and eat in my own Dining Room, none of their damm business, I say. No wonder our wonderful farmers are in true hardship, all this healthy eating rubbish, I suppose they want us all to eat low fat gumtrees from Timbuctoo, so they can all go awf on merry little jaunts to investigate it - and at whose expense? - yours and mine! - The country has gone soft. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

An - no

Kb - yes

--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Hello Major. For reasons not entirely clear (to me, at least) Werdnabot is not longer active and his owner asked for the associated pages to be deleted. However, User:MiszaBot III does the same job, and should be able to take over your archiving. This page explains how to set it up. If you have any problems with the code, let me know and I can do it for you. Rockpocket 17:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Being and Nothingness: political commentary?

Hi Major – when I read your references for this thread, I realised it wasn't about intellectuals drawing the heat, but that the Poles were in a land-locked political vise combining position, history and the ambitions of their traditional enemies. Topped off with Yalta betrayal by the allies as well, it was truly tragic situation for them. As this detoured from the original question just didn't want to go on about it in the thread But thank you for putting me onto that – helpful and sad at the same time. By the way you might like to vet Major Payne for your majors list. Not classy, but definitely embodied in popular culture. Cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Julia (if I may!). Thank you for your post. I'm married to a Pole, so I get a lot of earache from listening to my father-in-law's opinions and take on history; I've had to educate myself rapidly in order to be able to rebut some of the more outrageous anglophobic charges! If you can ever get hold of a copy (it's out of print, and the last time I checked was going for outrageous prices on Amazon), Czapski's book 'The Inhuman Land' is very interesting, detailing his death march by the Soviets (as the German advanced in 1941, they were quite happy to leave their matériel behind, but insisted on evacuating their prisoners), the formation of the Anders Army, and with an appendix about the atrocities perpetrated in occupied Poland. Another good book is 'Forgotten Holocaust: The Poles Under German Occupation, 1939-1944' by Richard Lukas. Both are very readable. This is another interesting article: Polish contribution to World War II, which fills in some of the bits which I wasn't taught at school: the Poles were first to break the Enigma code, had the highest scoring squadron in the Battle of Britain, and managed to capture, blueprint, and smuggle the major parts of a V2 rocket back to Britain. Militarily, they captured Monte Cassino and closed the Falaise Gap. Yalta, the British blame on Roosevelt, although the Poles blame Churchill.

I'll certainly add Major Payne to my list and give you a mention. Thank you very much - but thank goodness I didn't spend my hard-earned on going to see it! Thank you again for dropping by.--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for that. You've helped create another Poland-pupil. It's plain to see that history is written by not only the victors but hidebound in ulterior motives, and the real suffering is quietly lived through – or not (not lived or not quiet as per your fa-in-law). About the movie - all it really contributes is the title! Thankfully a proxy wikipedia reference to a fleeting TV advertisement was the most I spent on "seeing" it. But your list will be the richer (tongue-in-cheek) for its sweep of both high and low culture. Salut,  : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 09:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

To bomb or not to bomb?

Had an interesting debate with a relative about whether or not we should have bombed Auschwitz. Before I explain my view on this subject I feel I should say something about the holocaust overall. In the early days, when Jews were just to be deported and nobody took them, we became complacent in what came next. I seriously doubt the Nazis would have invested the time and resources in eliminating people they could otherwise ship to New York or London. Especially since in the Nazi mentality these people were ruining Germany, exporting them would've been a sort of "ethnic" warfare and a lot cheaper as well as less manpower intensive than the holocaust.

Anyway her opinion is that we should have bombed Auschwitz and any other concentration camps we could. Ignoring the impracticality of targeting any and all camps because of how many there were, I explained that doing so would have been a terrible idea for several reasons.
1) Risking the lives of our airmen to make them active participants in the holocaust would've accomplished nothing because whoever wasn't killed by bombs had nowhere to go and weren't usually in the best shape to get somewhere anyway. If we'd of bombed the trains, I'm thinking the Nazi's would've gone to plan b to get them into a camp.
2) The holocaust wasn't just evil, it was crazy and stupid too. For the latter reasons it actually kinda helped the war effort by diverting manpower, trains, etc. which could've been used to help win the war. Instead they were being used to kill either outright or through menial labor people who could've also helped the war effort. In my opinion it, the holocaust, was stopped as quickly as possible by winning the war. What do you think? Anynobody 06:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah-ha; the great Auschwitz bombing debate. My own take is that bombing of Auschwitz would have achieved nothing.

There are three books that I have come across that might be relevant. The first, and only one of these that I have actually read, is Rising '44. The Battle for Warsaw by Norman Davies (a Welshman who is actually the greatest historian of Poland; I have heard him interviewed in both languages and he speaks much better Polish than English); Hitler's Willing Executioners by Daniel Goldhagen and 'The Myth of Rescue: Why the Democracies Could Not Have Saved More Jews from the Nazis' by William Rubinstein. The allies did supply the Warsaw Uprising, and it's by analogy with those operations that I discuss what could have happened at Auschwitz.

Firstly, because of the distance involved (Auschwitz is is south-East Poland), any bombing operation would have been effectively one-way, having to go to Auschwitz and then continue East to Soviet-controlled airspace. The Russians did not operate a strategic bombing force so did not have the lengthy runways and infrastructure to support such an operation. From my own, rather casual, interest in this aspect of the war, as I understand it the British never bombed further East than Gdansk, Berlin, and Dresden; this was effectively the limit of their operations. Also any approach to Auschwitz would have been routed either through the heavily-defended Ruhr, or would have had to bypass the Ruhr, adding flying time. Krakow, approximately a half-hour car journey from Auschwitz, also hosted a German night-fighter squadron; so effectively what would have been asked of the aircrew was to fly across a heavily defended country to attack a target which had no military value; all that would have been achieved would have been the killing of Jews, which is what the Germans were trying to achieve anyway.

There was, however, an alternative, as used during the Warsaw Uprising, which was to use Liberator bombers flying from Brindisi on the heel of Italy, which could manage a 14-hour round trip, and which is what Churchill insisted was done then over objections from the RAF. Although the Liberators did manage to drop some supplies to the insurgents, the cost was horrific and, although one hates to say it, simply delayed the inevitable; really Churchill was making a political gesture at the cost of human lives (to be discussed further below).

However, suppose that the best case scenario had come to pass, which is to say a bombing of the Auschwitz fences and killing of the guards, allowing the inmates to scatter into the countryside: what would have happened then? I suggest: because Auschwitz was used as a central extermination camp for Jews from across Europe, many of these hypothetical inmates would have been foreigners, unable to speak Polish, and from towns and cities, unable to forage for themselves. Where were they to go to? Within a radius of at least 500 miles there was no friendly nation to support them (the nearest, perhaps, being Switzerland, which has a decidedly chequered history in this regard). Nor could they rely on support from the indigenous population, because the penalty for a Pole being found helping Jews was death for one's whole family.

There are various other aspects which come into play; although there is no evidence (that I've come across) that Churchill was swayed by these notions, since the 1942 battle of El Alamein removed the German threat of an invasion of Palestine, a terrorist campaign had come into being against the British, led by various Polish Jews including Menachem Begin (of Irgun) and Yitzhak Shamir (of the Stern Gang). These groups were running their own foreign policies with the Nazis, such as the ludicrous trucks plan and offer to wage war on the British. My own take on that is that I doubt the good faith of the negotiating parties. To be continued... . --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I am REALLY sorry this has sat here so long without reply; I found myself involved in several issues which absorbed much of my time here. One of which I think might interest you, but first things first.

Your point about Auschwitz being out of range is one I hadn't considered, I'd always assumed whoever advocated these attacks meant bombing it after the Allies were back in France...but of course Auschwitz predated that. (Although I will say that it doesn't seem impossible that the Soviets could've done something about it, but the thought of Stalin intervening for the Jews just made me chuckle.)

I'm happy to see we both agree that the bottom line, even in the best case scenario, would've been a complete waste of resources just to let us go from being complacent (which I'll admit we were somewhat, like I said before) to becoming participants in the Holocaust. (It does bring up the question of would bomber crews just follow orders and do the missions had they been ordered? I'd hate the stockade but it would sure beat putting my ass on the line for that. Then there's the matter of my conscience should I survive, probably making me wish I had actually died.) I'd really like to know just what these people are thinking by saying we should've bombed the camps, because they clearly either haven't thought the idea through or have incredibly positive imaginations. Either way I imagine it'd be good for a laugh, like Irgun and the Nazi's forming a real working partnership.

Anyway, in regard to one of the interesting debates I've been involved with;
Wikipedia should describe Bismarck's fate as being;
Sunk
or
Lost? Anynobody 04:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem! I'm in Poland at the moment, so can't spare much time myself. Aren't I right in saying that the British Admiral involved in hunting the Bismarck didn't actually finish her off - he just left her a burning wreck and she sank later? I seem to remember that this was considered a bit infra dig at the time and he never had a sea command again. This may have been something to do with the critical fuel shortage of the British ships by the time that they finally cornered her. I remember in a television documentary the author Tom Clancy claiming the reason that the Germans never managed to shoot down any of the attacking Swordfish was that these were obsolete aircraft, and flew so slowly that the German fire-control systems were always directing shot in front of them; I've never seen this claim repeated, but it has the ring of truth about it. Her sinking was the only time that the Lutine Bell was rung in Lloyd's of London during the war. Will return to Auschwitz in due course! --Major Bonkers (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

A ha! You're a victim too I see, for some reason people associate the sinking with who finished her off. (Don't get me wrong, when I first read about the Bismarck I inexplicably assumed her fate was the result of one or the other, but never both.) Years later I read about USS Washington's "duel" with Kirishima in the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. I say "duel" because the word implies combat between opponents, whereas Washington pounded Kirishima while it was trying to sink South Dakota and was oblivious to the former's presence until 16" shells started hitting. By then it was too late for the Japanese battleship, she soon found herself with wrecked steering and other significant damage making 360 degree turns. Knowing daylight would bring air attacks the captain chose to scuttle Kirishima which when one thinks about it, sounds a lot like Bismarck's situation. Like Washington the British were withdrawing from battle leaving an enemy warship which was still afloat. For different reasons of course but putting the Axis commanders in more or less the same situation. That is one where they know the enemy can and will be back, while they couldn't offer any kind of meaningful resistance. Certainly neither ship could've been taken as a prize, but valuable information would've been obtained if the enemy were to board them. Like any loyal, rational commander the Axis captains chose to save as much of their crew as possibly while denying the enemy what they could by ordering the ships to be scuttled. So understanding that Kirishima was scuttled because damage inflicted by Washington made her an easy target, seemed natural to me. The next time I read about Bismarck the new information overrode my previous opinion and made me wonder why I was so locked into one or the other but not both. An offshoot of that epiphany was realizing simply saying a ship sunk implies nothing about what sank it. The other side in the debate advocated labeling Bismarck's fate as "lost". Ignoring the fact that saying it was lost implies the owner's POV, it makes one wonder why a ship who's fate was well documented and position known should be described next to really lost ships like Cyclops or SS Cotopaxi? I never got a straight answer.

I've heard the same thing about her AA battery overestimating British aircraft from places besides Clancy, but have never bought it because I play video games. In some simulation games, aiming devices can be damaged, leaving one to improvise a bit. In Bismarck's case simply reducing lead would suffice, that is the computer says to shoot when the distance(*) between target(-) and sight(|) looks like this: |*****-
To compensate for the optimistic settings one could simply fire when it looks like this:|**-
I've read somewhere that the captain had his crew at general quarters for more or less the whole cruise after her encounter with Hood, which sounds like a believable human mistake. As a result they were probably just really tired at the same time the excellent British pilots were at their best when it mattered most.

On Auschwitz I should also clarify I'm happy to see we both agree that the bottom line... doesn't mean I'm happy we completely agree on every point, rather I'm happy to know one more person who doesn't operate on the idea of blind emotions. (In a ((ridiculously)) perfect world I'd want to do something which directly intervened in the Holocaust, but constraining myself to the fact Allied air forces didn't include B-52s, there's just no way to make any useful difference for the cost in lives.) Anynobody 05:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying; I'm finally back and I see that the latest iteration of the great Anglo-Irish edit war is heading over to WP:DRAMA yet again - I've arrived in the nick of time!

I'm rather against the use of the word 'lost' to describe a sunken ship, as it seems a bit euphemistic. I went to see the Johnny Cash biopic, and they used the word 'passed' for 'died'. I'm not entirely sure what 'valuable information' could have been gained by boarding the Bismarck - presumably a dangerous operation in itself - looting an Enigma machine seems a bit unlikely. --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Irish-Spanish war is more appropriate. The Anglo-Irish war seemingly ended when the majority of the English side were found to be the same person. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem on the delay, hope Poland was nice :)

People seem to have made more of Bismarck than it was, in my opinion, perhaps by focusing on what happened to Hood. (I know there are many people over there who have a soft spot for Hood, but really given what happened at Jutland to several battlecruisers it's not a big surprise Hood couldn't duel a modern battleship, Roma or Richelieu could've done the same thing.) I was reading about PQ-17, and since Dudley Pound had a brain tumor he can be forgiven for not being happy that Tirpitz was sailing to attack the convoy. If it had, and the allies didn't screw up somehow, planes from HMS Victorious could soften her up as shells from Duke of York and USS Washington eliminated the Nazi's last battleship. I suspect the Germans realized this, which possibly explains why they didn't sortie.

Anyway, though some ships are actually best termed lost; Cyclops and Munchen for example, I couldn't agree more that calling a ship who's location is known "lost" is too euphemistic for an encyclopedia :)

My last round of drama has somewhat burned me out on further involvement in drama for now, but I wish you luck on the new chapter in Irish historical drama. Anynobody 22:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hang on - the Tirpitz was the last German battleship, surely? The story of how the British tried repeatedly to sink her, using X-craft, bouncing bombs, and eventually two earthquake bombs, is quite extraordinary. It would make a very good book. --Major Bonkers (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I look at it as the last German battleship, but a lot of people think Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were battleships. IMHO if your ship can be outgunned by a cruiser it just isn't a battleship. Don't get me wrong, the story of how Tirpitz really was sunk is indeed quite interesting. I'm just saying it'd be interesting to see what would've happened had she gone out fighting. (For as many battleships as various nations built over the years, very few actually fought another.) Anynobody 02:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Major Long

Feel free to amend/remove as you see fit, it's your userpage after all. For verifiability see The Shankill Butchers by Martin Dillon (ISBN 0415922313). Online sources are a bit sparse for some reason, it's covered in the Gaelic Wikipedia's article on them though - Búistéirí na Seanchille. Other Crown Forces used similar names, for example the UFF used Captain Black, a play on words on John White. Similarly the Major Long name apparently came about because the Butchers had been drinking in the famous "Long Bar" in the Shankill area. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Aren't Crown Forces allowed then? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You've got me wrong; I don't hold a candle for this bunch any more than the other lot. They're both a bunch of arseholes with little to choose between them. Both groups turned their back on the option of democratic change and attempted to impose their own opinions by force. In doing so they have pretty well destroyed civil society in Northern Ireland, and created vast divisons which set back both agendas by generations. My sympathies are with the broad mass of people caught in the middle. The best option would be to herd the bigots of both side into Wembley Stadium and let them fight it out between themselves, out of sight and out of mind of the rest of us. I don't believe that 'Major Long' ever held a commission from the Crown, by the way. --Major Bonkers (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

union

How does one get the Union behind the WP globe as you have? --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Add this code at the very top of the page that you want to prettify: <span style="position:absolute;top:-29px;left:-180px;z-index:100">[[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom (3-5).svg|180px]]</span>.

Note to anyone else: it's easy enough to alter the image to your own flag of choice, should you wish.

C-r: you'll be delighted to know that this image is the 'war flag', which is a slightly squashed version of the Union flag; it works slightly better than the properly proportioned Union flag. And, having survived the ArbCom, it seems quite appropriate!--Major Bonkers (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I tried to put in the Ulster Banner (haha) but it doesn't look very good. God, that would've been funny. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You would probably need to fiddle with the figure shown as 29 in the above code; that determines how high the flag is in relation to the Wikipedia globe - it's easy enough to play around with it and arrive at something acceptable by trial and error.--Major Bonkers (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

My bad temper struck when I got pissed off at Mark "I'm clearly dead and everyone knows it" Speight being removed from the Deaths list. I'll have a look, thanks! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's certainly dead now: [6]. --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

no, no. Wikipedia wants testimony from his parents and a photocopy of his death cert. Photographs postmortem are highly desirable also. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you discovered the Humanities Reference Desk (or: WP:RD/H)? It's run by a girl called Clio the Muse and it's a haven of good manners. It's much more fun and entertaining than having one's content butchered.--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I imagine I'm too banal and repetitive for all that. Haha. I'll have a look-in, surprisingly busy at the moment though. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have been resolved now, 24 hours after every other media outlet. Perhaps he'll surprise us and suddenly reappear. --Major Bonkers (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hope not! See new user page! Counter-revolutionary (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Very... restrained. Have you noticed that the Vintagekits discussion has reappeared on the current page of WP:AN/I? Yawn. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Restrained in what way? It may be down to my being inept with computers. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Major

Your name always reminds me of Fawlty Towers. Is there a big disagreement on your page again? It always looks more exciting than mine. Anyway I have a friend who is new to this place and I suggested he could drop by here for advice on 'difficult situations'. He is User:Lawrence_Solomon who is a very important journalist. Best, West one girl (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think there's a great disagreement here - at least, I hope not. I just have my devoted band of admirers who regularly contribute here and, as you can tell from my User name, this page attracts all sorts - from the mildly eccentric to the howlingly insane!

Ah, yes, I remember the Major; I'll get round to adding him to my list and giving you a credit in due course. There was one exchange which could be my motto here:

The Major (reading a newspaper and shaking his head): 'Strikes again, Fawlty. I don't know why we bother?'

Basil Fawlty (sotto voce): 'Didn't know you did!'

I see your friend seems to have started off on the wrong foot; I'll drop by later this afternoon.

You might be interested, being a journalist and all, in my recent trip from the Hook of Holland to Warsaw and back again. This is an 11-hour drive, and I've become a bit of an expert on European motorway service stations. You can imagine my horror on discovering Dutch and German magazines, prominently displayed amongst the eye-popping pornography, with our own dear Jeremy Clarkson on the cover (fortunately raving on about cars rather than indulging in any physical activity). Even in Poland, I came across a collected edition of his newspaper articles translated into Polish, and I began to feel as though I was being stalked by the man. However, the conclusion I draw from this is that, if the presidency of Europe were not to be allocated on the basis of a soviet democracy but on the basis of a plebiscite, Jeremy Clarkson would stand a far better chance of being elected President than Tony Blair. And would that be a bad thing? An end to speed cameras, an increase in speed limits, and an emphasis regarding police time away from the soft target of motorists. Ah... only in a perfect world!

I'm sorry that there seems to be something wrong with the archive that I set up for you; you'll have to cut and paste what you want to go in, rather than it doing it automatically for you, I'm afraid. I might have another bash when time permits. --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I laughed with pain at your description of Clarkson. I shall certainly vote for himWest one girl (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he's a funny fellow (both peculiar and ha-ha). I like to imagine that he isn't quite as self-consciously prole-ly as he makes out:

SCENE: A beautiful Palladian country house, with acres of lawn, cedar trees, and birds twittering. Suddenly, up the drive roars an enormous and expensive car, scattering gravel as it skids sideways to a handbreak stop. The engine is turned off, the car door opens, and out steps JC.

JC: Wow! That was as exciting as putting my John Thomas [comedic/ dramatic pause] in a crocodile's gob!

JC strolls towards the house muttering to himself. No, not offensive enough... bloody metaphors. The front door opens as he climbs the steps; a man-servant holds a silver tray and a cut-glass tumbler of whisky.

JC: Ah, my chunda-peg! Now that's as welcome as a -

shrill voice from inside: Is that you Jeremy? What have I told you about those bloody metaphors? Not - in - the - house!

JC takes the tumbler. Mutters Bloody women! under his breath. He downs the whisky in one, breathes out heavily, plonks the tumbler back on the tray. He goes into a small cloakroom; the man-servant sets the tray down on a nearby butler's table and retrieves a heavy silk brocade dressing gown which he folds over his elbow. Meanwhile, JC has disappeared behind a beautiful eighteenth century Chinese screen. We see a bubble-perm wig being removed and handed to the man-servant, who places it carefully on a wig stand. Next comes JC's leather wind-cheater, which the man-servant accepts with a frisson of horror. All this time JC is talking to himself:

JC: ...in a mangle! [pause] ...in a fish bowl... full of piranhas! [pause] ...in a hamburger bun... with gerkins! [the man-servant winces, unseen by JC] ...in the carburettor of a Porsche 911 racing Zagato!

Man-servant: (murmuring) The perfect fusion of man and machine, sir.

All this time, almost imperceptibly, JC's accent has subtly shifted from bloke-ish up the social register until he sounds like a cross between Brian Sewell and a marquis. The jeans are thrown over the top of the screen.

JC: Don't forget to add the small stain of engine oil.

Man-servant: Very good, sir. Would that be the Castrol or the Mobil?

JC: Oh, I think we'd better use some supermarket own brand, don't you Carruthers? Don't want them thinking I'm getting above myself.

Man-servant: Very good sir.

JC steps out from behind the screen, dressed in evening slippers with a silk bow, evening trousers and red braces, dress shirt with studs and cuff-links, and cravat. The man-servant holds the dressing gown, which JC shrugs on. We realise that he has completely changed from oikish yob wearing ugly shapeless clothes into a dapper, beautifully-dressed middle-aged man with a short-back-and-sides. JC wanders out of the room and off down the marble-floored hall, whilst the man-servant gathers the discarded clothes for laundry. --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I see

Thanks for the tip off. I think the comments speak for themselves. --Gibnews (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I can't help noticing that both your subsequent main critics typically express themselves in ruder terms; see this related discussion a propos allegations of 'trolling'. It's always someone else!

By the way, for what it's worth, I think your comments were unwise (and no more), not because they were 'racist' (the great trump card that can be played to silence any argument) but because a reference in those terms leaves open the opportunity for this sort of palaver.

My own belief is that Admins should crack down with a zero tolerance policy (something that John and Rockpocket advocate). At the moment a certain level of rudeness is, or seems to be, considered acceptable and drones along like a background noise; it poisons the atmosphere and reduces what should be a fun past-time and collegiate activity into a hugely wasteful diversion of labour playing amateur politics. --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree on all those points, thank you for your patience and assistance in trying to make the article factual rather than POV. --Gibnews (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, thinking about it further, I can't help thinking that the argument about whether the European Court of Human Rights can (let alone the question of whether they did) over-rule the Gibraltar coroner is a complete red-herring. It might matter if Mairéad Farrell had been a lawyer or somehow established this legal principle, but that's not the case. For the sake of the Wikipedia article, I think it's best to try to ignore this question and simply report the judgment of both the inquest and the ECHR, being careful to WP:VERIFY everything back to those two documents. The ECHR judgment, at least, is on the web, so it's very easy.

I'm afraid that I have a self-denying ordinance on editing 'Irish articles', and I don't intend to edit this article, so I'll limit myself to the various Talk pages. You might, however, like to do some work on the 'Media comment' section which, because quotation marks have not been used, is a straight lift from the cited source and, misleadingly, does not refer to Death on the Rock but to 'the Frontline documentary, Death of a Terrorist'. --Major Bonkers (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Reposted from One Night In Hackney's Talk page

==Mairéad Farrell==

Hello. I wonder if we can't have another bash at this.

I think that the fundamental problem is that the term 'unlawful killing' has a specific legal meaning - see the WP article. This, I think, is where some of the dispute may be arising.

It is clear that the inquest found the killings lawful; the European Court, per what I posted on the Talk page, found this:

[Item] 213. [...] the Court is not persuaded that the killing of the three terrorists constituted the use of force which was no more than absolutely necessary in defence of persons from unlawful violence within the meaning of Article 2 para. 2 (a) (art. 2-2-a) of the Convention.

The European Court never went further than this, rather disguised, finding of 'unlawful violence', which it considered a breach of Article 2(2)(a) of the convention.

In short: the finding of 'unlawful violence' does not equate, legally, to a finding of 'unlawful killing'.

It's worth pointing out that this was the only element of the case that succeeded, and that on the smallest of majorities (10 to 9). This finding was anyway academic; because McCann, et al. had been up to no good at the time of their deaths, the Court refused any remedy for the breach of their Article 2 'Right to Life' (ie. the British government did not have to pay any damages to their families).

There is a conflict over the actual judgment and how it was reported in the news media. In my own opinion, it would be possible to add a section on 'Media response to the judgment', or somesuch. We should recognise that the media were using an element of hyperbole and grossly simplifying a complex legal argument but it is obviously fair to say that the judgment was reported, in layman's terms, as an 'unlawful killing'. Might this be a sensible compromise and way to proceed? --Major Bonkers (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Don't know how that happened! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Insomnia? --Major Bonkers (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

PS - thank you for your courtesy in posting that. --Major Bonkers (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You will have to be a bit quick to get this

[7]. Tarantara tarantara. - Kittybrewster ☎ 12:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why, you've found them! There must be some sort of reward in it for you. Might you have come across various other missing articles: a reputation for economic competence, the phrase, 'An end to boom and bust', and some £50 billion which seems to have vanished from the Bank of England in order to support some Geordies' mortgages? --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)