User talk:PBS/Archive 15

Huh?

You're kidding with this "technical close", right? I am sooo gonna BRD this - seriously? This discussion is not closed and has no reason to be closed at this time. Doc talk 08:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

For you to say, "Personally I think that "Yoghurt" is the "Correct" spelling..." and close this thread as a purportedly unbiased admin is improper. Per your admitted contribution to this debate, you should recuse yourself from any such action. Think about it, please. Doc talk 08:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I knew you'd get heat for that closure, but it was the correct thing to do. The RM was never going to gain consensus so soon after the last one (consensus can change, but it needs time to do so), doubly so with all the incivility flying around. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've undone and commented at ANI about it (under your comment). Hot Stop talk-contribs 14:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Tweaking Include-USGov

Restoring end of discussion from archive, because it is still a live issue ---

There are a few issues with the core template structure as you are proposing:

1. Sometimes {{Include-USGov}} is called directly from an article, when an obscure governmental agency's PD material is used. {{Include-USGov}} is highly protected --- non-admins (such as myself) will not be able to edit it to include new agencies, so they'll be stuck.
2. If all outer templates will redirect to {{Include-USGov}}, then we'll lose the ability to specialize the template (e.g., the comment field in {{USGS}}).
3. If outer templates don't redirect to {{Include-USGov}}, I don't understand the advantage of the new template structure (although perhaps you can enlighten me). —hike395 (talk) 06:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Yoghurt

Your action on Talk:Yoghurt clearly did not have either community or admin consensus, and therefore should not have been done - you cannot take it upon yourself to act unilaterally to shut down such an involved and contentious issue (much as we'd like to see the back of it) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Protecting Talk:Yoghurt against non-admin editing is an abuse of admin privileges - if you do that again you will have to face your peers at WP:ANI -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I really hate to do this, and it's my first block of an admin, but you cannot unilaterally shut the community up (which even extended to protecting the Talk page against non-admin editing), and you must not wheel-war when your blatantly non-consensus actions are reverted. I need to pop out briefly now, but as soon as I am back, I will refer my own actions here to WP:ANI -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, 24 hours was excessive, sorry - I've reduced it to 3 hours, and I would be delighted to unblock completely if you give us an assurance you will not edit-war to close the discussion without consensus and that you will not again protect the page against non-admin editing -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

PBS (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Zebedee first of all an oppolgy. I did not realise that ywere an administrator, I was in a hurry and did not check your page throughly enough (it is very cluttered). If I had then there would no point placing a short block on the page while we discussed whether my decision should be reverted.

Zebedee, you also to think, given that you were involved in this with me, whether your move was the correct one, or if you should have asked at ANI for another administrator to take this blocking action.

It seems to me that this is a misunderstanding. My actions were not edit warring. It was simply an administrative move to stop edit warring while it was discussed at ANI. A block or my account is not exactly going to allow this to be discussed at ANI.

OK let us suppose that this RM runs until its end. Then, as this RM was allowed to run so soon after the last, if another is bought almost immediately, what is the justification for stopping that one? There is a good reason not to hold RMs etc too soon after the last one, unless there is a clear reason to do so. None has been shown for this RM.

-- PBS (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Happy to unblock - it was with great regret that I blocked in the first place. I really do want you to join in the discussion, and I am currently composing a request for a review of my actions. On the subject of the RM, yes, I think one that had an outcome that wasn't "No consensus" would be great way forward. Anyway, look forward to discussing it further on the appropriate forum. (And what do you mean, cluttered? I reckon it's well laid out and informative ;-) Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

Hi. I've requested a review of my actions regarding the Talk:Yoghurt page, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#My block of admin User:Philip Baird Shearer - review please, and would welcome your thoughts -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you an admin open to recall? There are several people calling for an arbcom case. If this all could avoid that time sink, I feel that it would be best for the community. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to make it clear to whom you are addressing this question. By standard indent norms, it is addressed to Boing! but I believe you are asking PBS. –xeno^talk 14:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It appears he is addressing PBS, judging by his comments on AN/I. -Kai445 (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Bengal famine of 1943

Hi Philip, could you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll#Genocides_and_Alleged_Genocides ? Thank you, Tobby72 (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

barnstar

thank you. as you see my enthusiasm is greater than my knowledge of citations. good to have the Rich Farmbrough list cleared. tempest in a teapot, i expect you'll agree, given the looming backlog of 1911. if i get through other tasks, maybe i will return to it. definitely needs renewed project reinforcements. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 02:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Robert Duncanson (Army officer), you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Anglo-French War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your tips.

By the way, I'm interested in finding perl source code for modifying the way wikipedia pages are displayed and for data structures. I'm basically hungry for code with which to manipulate and display the contents of articles.

Are you a perl programmer?

I'm also interested in learning from perl scripts applied to Wikipedia in any way. Do you have any? The Transhumanist 00:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Eglantine Wallace (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to James Wallace

John Jewell Penstone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to National Portrait Gallery

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I quoted you in this rfc

I took the liberty to use a quote of yours to put you down in support of the original wording at this new rfc section so you didn't have to repeat yourself. Feel free to delete/change or whatever as appropriate... they are your words. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, PBS. You have new messages at Alpha Quadrant's talk page.
Message added 22:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Competence

Your inability to assess sources is concerning. Are you aware that Crabtree Publishing publishes childrens books? As such their products, while no dobut great for kids, do not belong in an encyclopedia. Nev1 (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Thanks

With regards to this edit American English uses "northwest" while British English does not concatenate the words, and either leaves them as "north west" or hyphenates them as in "north-west". -- PBS (talk) 07:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for this information, that is something I didn't know. ----Remotelysensed (talk) 14:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Cross of Sacrifice.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Cross of Sacrifice.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Green beret#Finnish Marine Commandos

(edited copy of what I wrote on the Talk page:)
"05:18, 4 January 2012‎ Philip Baird Shearer (talk | contribs)‎ (10,917 bytes) (Rv to last version by EoGuy. No evidence given that they are linked in anyway to the other units in this article. Please discuss on the talk page, Why this unit should be mentioned here.)"

where exactly does it say in the article "only units that have connection to the other units mentioned will be allowed"? the name of the article is "Green beret" and most of the units listed are marine special forces, Finnish Marine Commandos ARE special forces and use the exact same beret as the other units, both of which were made quite clear in my edit. Ape89 (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Treaty of Edinburgh & slighting

Think Samuel Haynes, ed., (1740), p.354, is good for the Treaty, and have put the googlebooks ref in Slighting. This letter is the source (only source?) for strengths of temporary residual French garrisons. You might like Alexander Crichton of Brunstane for an intriguing slighting story. Kind regards,Unoquha (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

RM on John VI

Thank you for your analysis at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Premature RM closure of John VI of Portugal. I have authored a long and sad reply which will make no one happy. The gist of which is that I don't agree with your final suggestion, I do not think the decision should be left to the closing admin User:the ed17. Taking the cat out of the bag, I believe his original actions were not only in error, but appear to be unethical, that the close seems to have been elicited by or done as a favor to a friend, that the closing admin intentionally violated WP policy. I know my proof is circumstantial, but it has all the appearance of it.

As a result, I cannot agree with your conclusion. I don't believe the Ed is competent to make this decision, having appeared to act with impropriety the first time, it should not be up to him. He should have recused himself the first time, and should be relieved of the decision now. I would like a different neutral admin to take the matter into their hands.

Since you have conducted this analysis most carefully, and have reached the conclusion that the "close and move" was indeed an error, and no other neutral admin has looked at it and disputed that conclusion, I don't understand why the decision can't be taken up by either yourself, or another admin. Why does it have to be the closing admin? I am a little puzzled by this.

This has all been a very unhappy experience, and I am sure we are all eager to put it behind us. I don't understand why it has to be dragged on.

This has been an exhausting and nightmarish experience. I have been on wikipedia for a few years, and although I've seen my share of contentious situations, never have I seen nor been subjected to such gangland behavior. Even so, I bear neither the Ed nor Lecen any ill, and would be happy to forgive and forget. Walrasiad (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear PBS,

Thank you for resolving the 3RR. And thank you for the advice on my talk page. I have taken it to heart, and stayed away from the ANI, and composed a more careful analysis of the case (for the RM, not Ed_17's closure) in the John VI talk page. Nonetheless, upon seeing Ed 17's replies on the ANI, I felt like his explanations were sincere, and that I owed Ed 17 a personal apology, so I took the liberty of submitting one on his talk page earlier today. He hasn't responded there, and I don't blame it if he doesn't. But I think it might be proper on my part to write something publically along those lines at the ANI, i.e. that I am reasonably satisfied by the sincerity of his explanations and thank him for clearing it up. If, however, you believe that is inadequate and will only inflame matters further, I will refrain. Walrasiad (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: I decided to submit it anyway. It is the least I owe Ed after putting him through this public ordeal. Walrasiad (talk) 06:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You may also be interested

to know that Belgians used Latvian POWs (Waffen SS) for live target practice until they were told the Latvians weren't Nazis. I should also mention that as the Baltic Waffen SS were stationed at Nuremberg as guards, the facts of the matter were clear then and clear now who was fighting whom and for what purpose. Haven't seen you interested in Baltic-related topics until now. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Alas, I always thought it was short term memory that was the first to go. :-) I'm hoping to put up some references on the Courland Pocket this year. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Zoot tower

Yes, sorry you are correct, it is 2003 for Penguin, I'll make the changes, cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited James Guthrie (Scottish Presbyterian divine), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Perth, General Assembly and James Sharp (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Thomas Chaloner (naturalist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Cecil (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Cross of Sacrifice.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cross of Sacrifice.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. :Jay8g ^{Hi!- I am... -What I do...} _{WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM} 00:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

My statement to Elen

My statement to Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs) about our dispute regarding WT:AT recognizability was so long I put it in a separate file, User:Born2cycle/DearElen. If you have a chance to look it over, and let me know if you find any inaccuracies or other problems with it, I would appreciate it. If you don't mind, please leave comments about it at User talk:Born2cycle/DearElen. Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Zurara

Hi PBS. Now that the whole John VI debacle has died down (thanks for your patience and mediation with that, BTW), I'd like to refer back to our earlier tussle on the citation structure on the Gomes Eanes de Zurara page. You did not reply to my note there and have probably forgotten quite about it. Let me reiterate my discomfort with citation templates and my hope that you will consent to allow me to reverse them without counter-reversing, so I can resume working on that page. I can insert the Britannica references manually for the cut-and-paste sections (although that section will be purged and redone completely). But that citation template is not something I can work with. Walrasiad (talk) 10:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Frederick H. Dyer

Hi,

I note you created Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion a few years back. I have been working on User:MarcusBritish/Sandbox/Frederick H. Dyer. Out of interest, do you have a copy of the Compendium, and if so, which edition? Specifically, I'm looking out for someone with a Morningside Press publication, so 1978, 1979 or 1994 edition. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 09:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I know which editor created all the Union regiment articles, but he used an online version of the Compendium. Reason I need someone with a Morningside edition, is because those editions have a new 3-page introduction written by some guy called Lee A. Wallace Jr. which may possibly include extra biographical info on Dyer not in the 1959 edition Intro, which I have, by Bell Irwin Wiley. If a 1978+ owner can send me the 3 pages, scanned or as photographs, it might prove useful for citing or expanding the article a little more. Thanks though, Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 10:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Firestorm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Harris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Order of battle for the Battle of Berlin

Please see Talk:Order of battle for Battle in Berlin--Corpusfury (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Death of Adolf

Hello! I've seen your note about sfn/harvnb etc at Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler. Would it make more sense to integrate it into the preceding section, where the hoo-hah built up and then Dianna proposed an opinion? The point being that everything is kept in one place? I have no particular opinion regarding the outcome, or at least not until I have had the opportunity to see a debate regarding the pro's/con's. My original concern was wrt the lack of discussion. Wikilawyering, if you want to call it that, but without any particular angst involved. - Sitush (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Seen what you have done. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Historian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Gray (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Führerbunker

PBS: Thanks for helping with finding cites recently on several WW II articles of mutual interest. This article still needs some cite work in the section of "Post-war events"; if you can help out with cites therein, that would be appreciated. Kierzek (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Norse Paganism RM Close

Philip, I think your point is a good one and IMHO highlights to some extent the dysfunctional nature of our overall titling policy and associated processes, especially if viewed holistically. This particular close I feel was within process and although close, reflected the local consensus after two weeks of discussion. That in no way implies that you, I or others (editors who did not participate in the discussion) think the current title is the correct title. However, as an admin, I was charged with deciding which way consensus in the discussion was leaning and in this case a move was made. Where our policies and process become dysfunctional are highlighted by your call to Commonname. None of the editors participating in the discussion invoked it as the policy and process doesn't require them to. Had you or others that believe Commonname is a driving policy in this case participated in the discussion, I am confident the result would have been different. Looking at this holistically here are some of the major dysfunctions:

• Any editor can move a title to a new title without any consideration of a policy based rationale as long as deletion of an existing title is not required. (Moves outside any RM process)
• Any admin can move a title to a new title without any consideration of a policy based rationale even if deletion of the existing target is required. (Moves outside any RM process)
• Within the RM process, moves can be made without any vetting of a policy-based rationale if they are uncontested (Technical and uncontested RM moves)
• Within the RM process, there is no requirement to provide a policy-based rationale holistically as our policy WP:AT and WP:MOS provide no logical relationship/priority between five broad policy buckets--recognizability and naturalness (essentially commonname and reliable sources), precision (ambiguity and disambiguation), neutrality (NPOV), and conciseness and consistency (essentially style considerations). We allow and the language in WP:AT gives license to arguments based solely on anyone of these buckets with a complete disregard to the others. In the case of Norse Paganism that is exactly what happened. NPOV (and maybe recognizability) became the only policy basis for the move. The editors participating in the move discussion were under no obligation to consider Commonname.

Now, of immediate concern. I know little of the subject Norse Paganism so I can't judge the title on its merits without the help of individuals like you who do understand the subject. But our dysfunctional process works to your advantage here. If I were you, I would open another RM with whatever you believe the title should be based on the policy rationale COMMONNAME and with some NPOV consideration. As the admin who closed the previous RM, I will not object and will actually support your actions if someone else objects. Our current policy allows it. Thanks for raising this because I think in the long run, its dysfunction like this that will drive overall, holistic improvements in the policy and process. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Philip. I have reverted my close at your request. I will recuse myself from further involvement in this RM. Thanks. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Advice sought on RM situation

Philip, as you and I had a recent discussion related to RMs, I thought I’d ask your advice on this situation. On January 17, this RM was initiated. I watched the discussion everyday. On Feb 6, I relisted the discussion with this comment essentially saying it’s been a stalemate so far and unlikely to result in anything but a no consensus decision unless one side or the other made significant movement. On Feb 7, an involved editor opened this tread Closing the move discussion that began discussing how the RM should be closed. On Feb 8, another thread entitled 218.250.159.25 was opened that began impuning the motivations of various IP editors who contributed to the RM discussion. I considered all of these threads as connected—RM, closing the move and the IP discussion. The direction of the discussion was clear, there was no consensus developing and bad behavior on the part of some was making the discussion personal. On Feb 11, I closed the discussion as no consensus. [1]. Within 90 minutes, an involved editor (not an admin), reverted my close claiming that I had not let it run for 7 days after relisting. This was done without discussion or even asking me about it. I engaged the involved editor here on their talk page [2], but as of now there has been no movement on his part and I doubt there will be. I don’t think reverting my close without asking me about it is in any way acceptable behavior. However, I am not going to enter into a revert war about this as there is zero upside to that. Additionally, I am not going to close this RM again (I actually think the involved editor thinks I am). My question to you is this. Apart from my close only 5 days after relisting, which may or may not have been a tactical error (there was significant indication that other editors wanted this RM closed), does this behavior on the part of an involved editor in an RM discussion warrant discussion at ANI? Any advice will be appreciated. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Edward Matthew Ward

please check my usage at Edward Matthew Ward; please respond to User talk:Paul Barlow per his comment at Template talk:Cite EB1911. i am unable to respond in a civil manner. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 20:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

thank you very much. perhaps i should have used inline as you changed. i keep hoping that the use of notes will encourage some book sources, to join in. perhaps we shouldn't use attribution but rather references. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 23:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Philip Baird Shearer,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

WT:AT

Is it safe to presume you're keeping an eye on the developing proposed "clean up" edits of the criteria section being discussed at WT:AT? If you think there is an issue with the direction we're heading, it would be better to hear from you sooner rather than later. Or can we assume "no news is good news"? Really nothing fundamental is changing, so I presume you're okay with it; just want to make sure. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

cleaning up citations

Hi PBS. You have earlier this evening amended a new citation on Francis Fane. Now when I click on the ref it takes me to something mysterious which says Motten 2008. I do not find this the least informative. What am I doing wrong? Eddaido (talk) 10:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Click on Motten 2008. It take you from the short citation to the full reference in the General Reference section. -- PBS (talk) 10:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Does now (in very pale almost non-existent highlight) didn't before and perhaps the next one needs fixing also? I mean Goodwin 1889. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Alexander Swinton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to John Baird, Eccles, James Dalrymple and Hew Dalrymple

John Swinton (politician) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to John Hope, Tolbooth, Duke of Richmond and Lennox and William Lockhart

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTBROKEN

PBS, I was not aware of WP:NOTBROKEN. I take it that the problem with this edit is in Line 33 rather than Line 76? Hamish59 (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Would 1st Panzer Army be better than First Panzer Army? Hamish59 (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

As I say, I was unaware of WP:NOTBROKEN and have been happily "fixing" all the redirects. I have been demused by how many veriations there exist: 1st Panzer Army (Germany), First Panzer Army (Germany), 1st Panzer Army, First Panzer Army, German 1st Panzer Army, German First Panzer Army, often used within the same article (as in Prague Offensive), and of course Panzerarmee, Panzer-armee, Panzer-gruppe, Panzergruppe etc. etc. I suppose the only surprise is that I have not found I Panzer Army plus all variations. I was trying to tidy this up without changing the look of the articles themselves. So, for Prague Offensive, the original (?) author wanted to use "First Panzer Army" rather than "1st Panzer Army" hence the change. Hamish59 (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the explanation / history of Army names. Hamish59 (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Splitting German Armies

This is an entirely separate issue, as you say, nothing to do with WP:NOTBROKEN hence I am putting in a separate section here. I can assure you that I have no "political" agenda. Merely a belief that, for example, the German 1st Army in World War One was completely unrelated to the German 1st Army in World War Two. I thought that was the concensus reached on the military history talk page. Or have I got this wrong? Hamish59 (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Granted: "uninterested" is a better word. Hamish59 (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, PBS. You have new messages at Talk:Al-Qaeda.
Message added 10:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SudoGhost 10:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Edington

Hi Philip, I tried to close your requested move to help clear the backlog, but I see there was no consensus (i.e. no discussion) to move it in 2009, and no consensus now to move it back, and things are complicated further by the fact that it was moved in 2009 by someone later banned for sockpuppetry. I'm therefore unsure how to proceed with it. Can you ask neutrally for other input on relevant Wikiprojects and the like? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be equal numbers and good points on both sides, which is why it's tricky. You might want to ask Ealdgyth to have a look, as this kind of sourcing issue lies within her area of expertise. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Electorate of Hessen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hessen-Kassel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Army in India

Hi Philip, greetings, we haven't interacted in a while. It is my strong conviction that the highest headquarters for the Army in India was actually known as 'General Headquarters, India.' The reference you added to the page which is now at India Command, from a book seemingly about the Vietnam War, are, I believe, incorrect. Core histories of the British or Indian Armies will, I believe, show this (eg 'We Shall Shock Them' and others). (Leo Niehorster using 'X Command' sometimes inaccurately all over the place doesn't help things though.) Are you willing to open a dialogue on this? Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia self-referencing in template space

What is this? May I ask you to read WP:Manual_of_Style/Self-references_to_avoid carefully (note that self-reverences are only "not encouraged" in template space) or point out where this issue is being discussed on the talk page? Also note that the {{cleanup}} template is for Wikipedia maintaining and not on the topic of an article. Thanks, Nageh (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I was looking for an explanation on the guideline's talk page, somehow missing your addition of a comment at Template talk:Cleanup#Notification. Nageh (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

A number of people (including me) don't agree with your revert here. In light of this, I was wondering if you would consider putting the message back? Tra (Talk) 03:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you look at this page?

Hello, I've been looking for an editor with a background in terrorism issues to help develop the page Terrorism in the People's Republic of China. I initially left a note on BonifaciusVIII's talk page, but he/she does not appear to be very active on the project these days, so I have come to you.

I began working on the page a few weeks ago (here's the before[3] and after[4]) after noticing that it had some serious problems. Ultimately I would like to see if it can reach GA standards, though I fear that, in the absence of judicious, knowledgeable editors offering constructive feedback, the process of achieving consensus will be fraught with disruptions. I've made several proposals on the talk page suggesting ways the article could be improved,[5] but am mostly talking to myself.

If you have some time, I would very much appreciate if you could weigh in on the general direction of edits, or contribute in other ways as you see fit. My research background is in Chinese politics, but I have only a small amount of formal education related to terrorism. I may be missing some level of nuance in my reading of these issues. Also, seeing as terrorism related topics are inescapably controversial, I want to ensure that everything is being handled with adequate care. Let me know if you're interested. Homunculus (duihua) 20:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Re:Notification

Re:Notification

Please, reply. Bulwersator (talk) 07:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Revert_requested_on_Template:Cleanup) Bulwersator (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Dated maintenance templates

When you create a new dated maintenance template or add maintenance dating to an existing template, as you did recently to {{Rayment}} and {{Rayment-hc}}, it would be very helpful if you would also add the template to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Dated templates so AnomieBOT knows what to do with all the articles suddenly dumped into the dated maintenance category. Otherwise, AnomieBOT ends up sending me an email with thousands of lines complaining that it can't find any template to date in each one of those articles and asking me to manually fix things.

Of course, don't do this if there is need for someone to go through and do something more intelligent than "add |date={{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} to all existing instances", but in that case it would be even better to have someone do that before activating the dating feature. Anomie⚔ 18:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

South-West Africa Campaign

You reverted an edit I made here a couple of days ago; I’ve opened a discussion on it, if you wish to comment. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cite DCB

Re: your edit, does it make a an actual functional difference if the parameters are unset, vs. set but empty? I'm aware that the template scripting language is capable of detecting the difference between the two situations, but in practice nearly all templates handle the two situations equivalently. As far as I know, {{cite encyclopedia}} does.

Perhaps using

author={{{author}}}

instead of

author={{{author|}}}

would result in an unset parameter rather than a set-but-empty parameter? A quick test could be done to check.

-- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

unexpected discovery: two types of URLs for Dictionary of Canadian Biography

At the Étienne Guy article, I came across this external link:

• http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.asp?BioId=36565

Note the difference from the usual URL. This "BioId" number is not the same, it fails if put into a {{Cite DCB}} template.

Doing a search for the name at the DCB website produced a conventional URL:

• http://biographi.ca/009004-119.01-e.php?&id_nbr=2443

Just wanted to let you know in case you were unaware of these old "BioId" URLs. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Review Request

If you get some time would you consider reviewing the Western Betrayal article and the talk pages? In my opinion the article is practically owned by a gang of POV-pushing editors who always chime in as a group whenever the substance of he article is challenged. I find the article blatantly offensive and one sided, but the only edits allowed are shallow and deceptive "compromises" when the police here manage to turn the debate on the talk page to extraneous minutia...also note the histories of the main article protagonists here who have a long history of proven trouble on wiki in current and previous usernames. Please help, thanks. 98.92.207.190 (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, I saw your review on the WB talk page and appreciate the time you took. The above editor is right to say that the page is dominated by a small, yet determined group of editors and fails to reflect a broader view on the subject. I fear though that your comments will disappear into the mists of time and the situation will not change for the better :( Let's hope I'm wrong. Malick78 (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Editors deleting entries on your talk page

Another editor is so afraid of his own history that he is editing and deleting items from your talk page, despite being warned against doing so. Please look t what has been deleted from your talk page and look very closely at who has been doing the deletingon your page and elsewhere. 64.134.58.83 (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Western Betrayal needs you

The Western Betrayal article is turning very volatile. See its talk pages. Please stay involved and please continue the approach of sound moderation that has served you and Wikipedia so well.184.36.234.102 (talk) 04:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)