User talk:PBS/Archive 11

PSTS Policy & Guidelines Proposal

Since you have been actively involved in past discussions regarding PSTS, please review, contribute, or comment on this proposed PSTS Policy & Guidelines.--SaraNoon (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian mujahideen

I realized there is a pattern in anon's behaviour. Anon from Scandinavia is editing just two articles: Bosnian mujahideen and Alija Izetbegovic - with different IPs.

• 85.224.135.70 (Stockholm)
• 64.72.116.208 - Proxy - a revert to the version by 85.224.135.70
• 85.224.132.168 (Stockholm)
• 85.224.133.98 (Stockholm)
• 79.102.119.194 (Sweden)

--Kruško Mortale (talk) 05:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As you asked me to write my opinion about version I have been reverting to, you might want to read it here -> Talk:Bosnian_mujahideen.

--Kruško Mortale (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Russian Army 1815

Having seen his name in Plotho I sought to discover more about him but drew blanks when using the spelling as used by Plotho. 'Dokhturov' is the most commonly used which is what I should have used rather than the one I used, as it keeps the harmony between the articles. What I changed was the ending sound as it is an ov sound as opposed to a ow sound.

As you know no doubt know the Russians use the cyrillic alphabet and not the latin alphabet.

His name in Russian is Дохтуров. B in Russian is pronounced as V not W.

Hope this clears things up a little. --Assisting Wiki (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

United States Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific

I'll try to help with this. Take care.. Bwmoll3 (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

As I'm sure you're aware of all of the definitions, pages and standard warnings, having engaged in similar before on MoS pages, I won't provide links you are surely already familiar with. I'm sure you've aware that you are edit warring against consensus on WP:LAYOUT, altering long-standing text and reverting twice now in spite of no other editor yet having concurred with your changes. Please develop consensus on talk pages before altering pages against consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin

Hi, thanks for your copy-editing! However, I believe the lead is shortened to much now. Would it be possible for you to add few details to it and expand a bit? Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, it seems to me that you are familiar with this article. I am very doubtful about the number of german KIA. Do these losses stemp from a large operation than the operation that the soviet losses relate to or are they made by a mistake?

Most sources I find in books estimates the number of soviet KIA to the same number as in the article about the Battle of Berlin and writes, in the close following, that "initial estimates" puts the number of german KIA to roughly 23 000 (a number that most likely concerns only the Battle in Berlin, since the KIA during the Battle of Halbe alone reaches almost 30,000 (according to the article)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.224.186.123 (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Pacific Air Forces

I should have put the "underconstruction" template up, as I think we're clashing a bit on the editing of this article. I started to expand it last night. And I appreciate your editing :)

I'll back off on this the rest of the day (sometimes real-life work gets in the way of wikiediting) so go ahead and have at it for a while. This article was in dire need of expansion and hopefully in a few days it will be finished (as much as any article on wikipedia is ever finished :)

Take care. Brent Bwmoll3 (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Western Front (World War II) End of the war

Dear Philip. I don't think the link you introduced into the European Theatre of World War II article is better, because, as we already discussed, the outcome of the war was a result of collestive efforts of the Western Allies and the USSR, whereas the link directs to the Western Front only. I would like to know your rationale of doing that, otherwise I am intended to revert your edit.
Best regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

links

Many of the current editors participating at Wikipedia talk:External links are extreme exclusionists/deletionists/immediatists/wikilawyers (see [1] (still excised) and Wikipedia_talk:Dead_external_links#No_reason_to_link_to_an_archive_copy_of_a_page). Take what they say with a mountain of salt. (and help fix their damage if you can) frustrated (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible problem

Hi Phillip,

I don't know if you're an admin these days, but if you are could have a word with User:Ausiephil2008. It looks like he's prmoting a book (very likely his own) on Cromwell in Ireland and dumping it into all the articles on the subject. Any help would be appreciated. Check it out. Any help would be appreciated.

Jdorney (talk) 11:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian mujahideen

Hi Phillip. I left my comments regarding Mujahideen article. As you suggested to merge two versions I reverted to the version with the parts deleted by anon (background section). If you have time, I would like you to review current version, and include or exclude parts you think doesn't belong there. I think I gave very good arguments with the links for the current version, anon just repeated the same questions, for which I think it's just the way to prolonge discussion without any progress. Kruško Mortale (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ba Chuc massacre

French language. All it needs is to switch oneself to a wider world

http://khmercanada.site.voila.fr/cambodge64.htm

Video of vietnamese masscred under Lon Nol and Pol Pot:

http://khmercanada.site.voila.fr/atrocites.htm

Video of back to life:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hBlHN-wtzY&mode=related&search=

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3UzzQ-9uu0&mode=related&search=

1970 “Coup d'État” of Lon Nol and massacre of vietnamese minorities in Cambodia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrTPQIHxfMs&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgFuEu4gZSE&mode=related&search=

Takima (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

British India

I think we need to reach some closure on the fate of British India. Could you stop by and take a look when you get a moment? Thanks. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 15:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Honolulu et al

I've not kept track of the debate to move big cities like Honolulu, but if more get moved, would you please update their county templates? For example, see this diff. Nyttend (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason I ask you, not Cashman, is that it's a lot of work for one person to do (look at all the templates at the bottom of San Antonio, for example, nearly all of which link to San Antonio, Texas), and unlike Cashman, you know when the page is getting moved. Nyttend (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note about completion; otherwise I'd be wondering how many more were left :-) Nyttend (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Big Ben move despite lack of consensus

Though I strongly support the move to Big Ben, I think your moving it despite the clear lack of consensus is an example of abuse of power by an admin. Sorry, but it has to be said. This is not the way decisions should be made in Wikipedia, even when they're the right decisions. When consensus in favor of a move is not there, status quo needs to prevail (unless there are obvious extenuating factors to consider, which in this case there were not).

By the way, I think your decision to exclude St. Louis and Cleveland from the big U.S. city move was also inappropriate, since consensus clearly favored moving of the entire list, including those two cities. However, that problem can be remedied by having individual moves proposed for those two (which I won't do, but probably someone will). --Serge (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Will you please address the concerns that both Serge and I have identified on Talk:Big Ben. Chillysnow (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The arguments you have presented here just don't hold water. How long the article was called Big Ben in the past is of course entirely irrelevant. And your assertion that if my logic had been followed then the article would have been moved in Jul 2007 is entirely false. In fact, there was no clear consensus there either, as it plainly says in the summing up on that page. I quote: Although there is a majority of opinion in favour of the move, it is not overwhelming, and much of the support was admittedly reluctant. Many contributors are adamant that the tern "Big Ben" should only be used for the bell itself. It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. User:Stemonitis. So we are back to the position that you have moved the page with no clear consensus, which is a flagrant abuse of admin power. You seem to be deliberately ignoring valid concerns so I see no alternative but to take this to dispute resolution. Chillysnow (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-11-07 Big Ben Chillysnow (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I'm the mediator in the case. I would definitely appreciate your involvement so that an amicable resolution can be achieved. I understand of course if you would prefer not to participate; MedCab isn't binding in any way. Let me know at the mediation page if you would like to participate or not. Cheers! [ roux ] [x] 01:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter. I have those requirements in place because I've found that they ensure both parties are serious about participating with open minds. I won't be reading any of those links to ensure that I participate with an open mind. All I know is that Chillysnow feels that there is a dispute and feels that you're the source of it, and MedCab is one way to resolve that dispute. If you don't wish to participate, that is your choice of course, but I would hope that you trust me to approach mediation with an open mind for a) both parties, b) the ramifications of any outcome, and c) a wide variety of possible solutions. [ roux ] [x] 16:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Philip (and I can't believe I called you Peter.. TWICE). I haven't read the links because I don't want to prejudice myself in any way. Once both sides have told me why they're right (with supporting diffs and links of course), then I will look through everything you two have provided, and decide whether it's the right venue, how to proceed, and start figuring out ways to bring you both to an agreement. I think it's only fair that I open and begin the case with a totally open mind; I'm sure you would expect the same if you ever had to open a case. I hope I'm explaining my position. Please let me know if I'm not. [roux » x] 18:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I'm Mononomic, and I'm the new mediator on the Big Ben MedCab dispute. I'd like to know if you wish to participate, so we can either begin mediation or close the case. Whenever you have a chance, please go to Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-11-07_Big_Ben. If you do not wish to participate, please let me know on my talk page. Thank you! Mononomic (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Miami

Nope, nothing needs to be done ... all the deleted revisions are useless for GFDL purposes. I'm pretty sure I took into account all the history from the other U.S. city articles that were moved along with it, but I'll check them out just in case. Graham87 23:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Nichalp's comments

Would you like to comment here? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin

Hi Philip. I was unaware of the discussion in the talk page. I only added the total figure of 1,047 aircraft to the infobox in order to avoid a contradiction with the (sourced) text of the article. I have reverted my edition, however, since a good number of authors include only the losses over Berlin itself or in missions targeting the German capital (indeed, about 500 bombers lost). Nevertheless, things need to be fixed in this article. I think this is a case of disagreement between different sources; some consider "Battle of Berlin" all the RAF air raids wich took place inside Germany boundaries from November 1943 till March 1944.--Darius (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

British India

Hi Philip, Just thought I'd let you know that a final version of the text for British India has been arrived at with user:Nichalp's input and suggestions. I will be moving the text to the mainspace. Since you had started the RfC, I was wondering if you might like to make a comment or two on the talk page and wind it up. Thanks for this long and patient effort! Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

warning

Why did you put a warning on my talk page on oct. 26th? Your reason was that I was uncivil on a talk page, when I looked at my comments I saw nothing offensive. Maybe you should warn the user who denies the Armenian Genocide--Moosh88 (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous user comments

I was wondering why you struck all the comments made by anonymous users when closing the move discussion at Talk:Big Ben? Is this normal practice with move discussions? Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, as I said I'm not that familiar with the process and it's good to find out a bit more about it. Guest9999 (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, PBS. You have new messages at Mononomic's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cheap demagogy

My reply

First I didn't read this, but anyway this is sad and ridiculous. It's obvious now that you're on anon's side, and two of you cooperate. You protected the page twice, reverting on his version before that. This is clear example of demagogy and misuse of admin privilages. But this isn't over, I am going to ask mediation or some other way to point out your behaviour. Kruško Mortale (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive492#Bosnian mujahideen

Message

Hello, PBS. You have new messages at WilliamH's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WilliamH (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Treaty of Paris (1815)

The changes to the dates are in line with the MoS - see WP:DATE#Dates "Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes, articles, or leading zeros." As for unlinkng Switzerland but keeping English Channel - it'a matter of judgment. It's my feeling that most people will know enough about Switzerland not to need to follow a link to establish the basics about it, but the same might not be true of the English Channel. However, it's a bordeline case, so if you feel differently, I won't argue. Colonies Chris (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Blücher

"Blücher" is the spelling which the editors of the article on him have selected for the title of that article. I'm making internal references to him consistent with that choice. Colonies Chris (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The implication of what you're saying is that articles should use different variants of a person's name, even within the same article, if the original sources for different parts of the article differ in their spelling. It makes sense to standardise on the spelling which other editors have agreed upon. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I repeat - by your logic, a single article might have to have different spellings with it, or different articles mentioning the same person might have different spellings just because the sources differ. That's a nonsense - especially in the case of a name like Blücher which has often been spelt differently solely because English-language printers didn't have, or couldn't be bothered with, the umlaut. That was his name and that's the spelling he used and that's the title of the article on him. The fact that various sources spelt it differently due to technical limitations is utterly irelevant, and I utterly reject your attempts to bully me about this and other things. I suggest you adjust your attitude to be less aggressive. Colonies Chris (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Apostrophes inside or outside the link

There has been debate on this, and the MoS allows both styles. I feel that keeping the possessive apostrophe outside the link makes clear that the link is to the name, and the possessive is a suffix to that. One example that has been given in discussion of the lack of clarity thay can occur is that George Washington's clearly means "belonging to George Washington" but George Washington's might be the name of a bar. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Country lists

Just wanted to say thankyou for making a start on the changes to sort out all the country lists.. Good job BritishWatcher (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Cliche

I think you sent the deletion notice to the wrong user.

No Prob. Jaberwocky6669 (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)