Page four

Talk:Regions of Chile

Hi Phil, can you have a look at Talk:Regions of Chile, I proposed some moves there to make article titles for South American subnational entities in general an Chilean regions in particular consistent. There was no oppose. It just bad mixture now and editors are stuck because they cannot move. I do not understand why it says "not moved, because no consensus". It could also be "moved because no oppose". Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

problem is solved Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Renaming Eastern Front (World War II)

I would appreciate your input at Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)#Renaming. Gdr 23:04, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

Yogurt

Thanks for the suggestions. By the time I read your message, however, the changes had already been made. bernlin2000 ∞ 23:23, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

It looks like this debate is going to deadlock, which I'm pretty surprised. It seems pretty cut and dry: "yogurt" is the most common spelling internationally, but obviously this is not a factor in deciding. People apparently prefer to debate over the linguistics... bernlin2000 ∞ 20:19, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Gustav II Adolf-vote

You'll have to pardon me for reformatting the vote, but it was just too oblique to be of any proper use. Please make your votes again, but stick to one vote per alternative and don't oppose the ones you don't support; it's just confusing.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:38, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Bombing of Dresden in World War II

I hope we can reach the compromise. My goal is for this article to became FA. It has had little activity recently, so it is not very vandal-prone, and I am sure we can create an improved, NPOV version based on my additions. I am not claiming my source or POV is perfect, but I do think I can help improve this article. The very fact is that it is not up to FAC standard, so we should try to bring it up to it. Btw, when reverting, please consider that not all info is POVed - how can you claim my additions to culture section are poved? :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

For your convinience, I repost my answer here: I have read the archives - well, most of them. I have yet to see an article that would have to be gutted this way because it would be POVed otherwise. Wiki evolves, and an old vote may no longer be useful - for example, this lead is completly inadequate for Wikipedia 1.0. Also note that Wiki's leads are cited more and more often in media, and again, this fails to be comprehensive. I am not insisting on using my older version (this is why I created the above section), I am not reverting your revert, but I do insinst that we work out a compromise and improve thsi article. Nowhere in Wiki official or semi-official policies is it stated that old version, even supported by a vote, cannot be updated. I appraise you for work and moderation on this page, I can see you put many, many hours into this issue, but as a person with 9 FA, and experience in NPOVing controversial articles to FA status (see Talk:Polish-Soviet War archives, for example) I feel I can help you and other contributors to make this a NPOV FA. Please, let's work together and don't be afraid of change. After all, wiki being wiki, change equals improvement, more often then not :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see the talk. Unfortunately, my article is a 'popular magazine' one with no sources (btw it uses the wrong large death estimates), so I admit we may have to drop most of its info if we cannot verify them. I am glad to see your knowledge of this event is much more extensive then mine - I can leave most of the work to you. As long as you will put the useful date in yourself (population and such) I won't have to do any edits myself :> However, it being Polish makes it no less useful - it is a sourcem and the article uses at least one German-language source as well (Luftkriegslegenden in Dresden von Helmut Schnatz). Additional note: you should make larger leads, as per Wikipedia:Lead. I base this not on my preference, but due to tiny leads both of those (great otherwise) articles would fail FAC process. I will reply to other points in Dresden talk. A final note: all info which we cannot source (and you removed from the article) - I'd appreciate if you could add it to Talk for later verification, instead of losing it in the edit history, ok? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Waterloo painting

Hi -- I've scanned the Waterloo painting and added it to the Waterloo article at a location in the text that I chose simply because there weren't any other illustrations there.--Bcrowell 15:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Würzburg radar

Hi Philip,

Sadly we appear to be the only people with any interest in the Wuerzburg/Würzburg debate at the moment, but I was just wondering if I might be able to persuade you to reconsider your Oppose vote? I respect the fact that the source used the Wuerzburg spelling, but when using an English keyboard, 'ü' is often replaced by 'ue' for the sake of convenience over absolute accuracy. In pursuit of correctness, especially when it is of minimal inconvenience to both casual browsers (use of redirects) and Wikipedians to use 'ü', it seems sensible to me that the article should be moved. This would also align the radar's page with that of the town after which it is, after all, named. I'm sorry to have switched all the spellings in the article before the move was agreed - in an attempt at boldness, I tried to move the article without putting up a request, but the previous edit history of the target page prevented me from doing so. I completely forgot to change back that part of my edit afterwards! I hope you feel my other contributions to the page have been constructive - I'm sure we both have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart! Best regards, -- Yummifruitbat 17:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

GA page move

I'm not at all sure why, but it seems we're voting again on what to call Gustavus Adolphus. Since you voted the first time, you may want to participate again. No Account

dear Shearer, by keeping strictly to the archaic -us -phus format, you are allowing the inconsistent (individual)alternative to win. 62.78.104.96 11:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User talk:PBS/Archive 4

Archives