User talk:PBS/Archive 6

1 2 3 4 5

Ottoman Empire

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

template

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

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

You can see the template I've gotten at the bottom of Royal Observer Corps. Again, comments welcome.GraemeLeggett 13:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

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

Third opinion

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

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

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

football

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

All the best

04:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Licinius

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

Please check your WP:NA entry

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

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

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

Arb Com.

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

Chadian-Sudanese conflict

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

Allied War Crimes and Unrestricted Submarine Warfare

Hi Philip

Thanks a lot for weighing in, and for the correction on Dönitz. I fully agree with your removal of the NPOV. Let's hope that the issue has been put to rest now. Andreas 09:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible wars between liberal democracies

Hi. I see that you have an interest in history and military history. I am writing a list of possible wars between liberal democracies and what has been said about them in the DPT literature: User:Ultramarine/sandbox3. I would appreciate any suggestions. Ultramarine 12:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Halbe

Hi Philip

Thanks for your contributions to the article. I normally use German nomenclature to help the reader distinguish between the Germans and their opponents (we had a short discussion about this on the Mil Hist Project page (now archived), where there were no strong feelings one way or the other. In any case, since you changed it, I guess you do, and I accept that. :-)

One thing though I will change back - German armies had Arabic numerals. Roman numerals were only used for Armeekorps (e.g. XXXXVIIII.AK) and for battalions that were part of a regiment (e.g. II./IR424). Everybody else had Arabic numbers or letters, or names.

Keep up the good work. Andreas 08:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's continue the discussion on my talk page? Andreas 11:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Philip - it might be better to continue on the MilHist talk page, since it goes beyond the Wiki article on Halbe? Andreas 12:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Halbe it is. Andreas 13:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Swedish)

Re. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Swedish):

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

Further, according to WP:POINT:

If you wish to change an existing procedure or guideline...

• do set up a discussion page and try to establish consensus
• don't push the existing rule to its limits in an attempt to prove it wrong, or nominate the existing rule for deletion

and:

Egregious disruption of any kind is blockable by any administrator — for up to one month in the case of repeat offenses that are highly disruptive.

If you have any questions, ask me. --Francis Schonken 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

To date Francis as you must be aware, I have edited the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Swedish) page once. To revert you changing the page from a proposed guideline to a guideline. So why are you writing to me about three-revert rule and what is this WP:POINT "If you wish to change an existing procedure or guideline..." supposed to mean? As I have written on the talk page of the article I am not convinced that you have a wikipedia:consensus to make the change from proposal to guideline. I would point out to you that I am trying to work in the spirit of the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines ---Philip Baird Shearer 11:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As you seem accustomed, you revert prior to talk page engagement. The 3RR template says: "Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive." (my bolding)

WP:POINT is clear that this is no way of behaving regarding guidelines.

Further, I accuse you of laziness: re. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Swedish) all your conditions are met, apart from the imaginary "number of people editing a proposal" and "needs a poll" (which is just you operating outside consensus). You just didn't make any effort to check on how many pages the proposals were advertised, nor read the Village pump discussion to which I posted links on several places, nor checked that in the whole of the process of working on this proposal there were at least 20 or 30 people engaged directly or indirectly, nor checked that there was a clear consensus established on its talk page, etc.

That's why I posted this formal warning. Since you continued your behaviour now also on wikipedia:naming conventions (Czech), I add a second formal warning:

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing.

Please remember that the things I say above are much more within wikipedia's established consensus, than your solitary crusade against *any* (partial) solution of the diacritics debate, and I'm prepared to take that up in an RfC or RfAr or whatever is needed. So I'm still asking you politely to undo your reverts of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Swedish) and wikipedia:naming conventions (Czech), and discuss such revert proposals on the respective talk pages *first* (that is prior to de-guidelining), and await the results of such discussions before action on the guideline pages. --Francis Schonken 11:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Francis: see the Three-revert rule it says "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period." I have not reverted single page 3 times in 24 hours. I would have thought you would applaud my attempts to build a consensus on the policies, if there is a consensus like you believe then it will become self-evident quite quickly. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

"Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive." is content of the 3RR template. so I'm perfectly entitled to consider you impolite and unproductive.

Now you added a new revert: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Justifying your revert with "I do not agree" against over 30kb of talk by several people on the talk page of that guideline, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)#Using diacritics (or national alphabet) in the name of the article, can be labelled WP:POINT beyond a shred of doubt.

Asking you politely to undo that revert of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) too.

Please give people the time to react to your posts at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)#New guidelines which may impact on this and other guidelines. Consider using the in-between time to read prior discussion, like Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)#Using diacritics (or national alphabet) in the name of the article and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format. The speed you develop in reading other wikipedians' contributions would mean you're busy reading for at least 24h. --Francis Schonken 14:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Now you're at it re. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (hockey). Please, again, have a look at WP:POINT, you give the impression never having read what's in there.

(again:)

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

You're impolite, and unproductive, and you're making a stock trade out of it. --Francis Schonken 00:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Francis: to repeat myself: see the Three-revert rule it says "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period." I have not reverted single page 3 times in 24 hours. I would have thought you would applaud my attempts to build a consensus on the policies, if there is a consensus like you believe then it will become self-evident quite quickly. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay page move

Thank you for helping with that. You set up a poll that was already ongoing above as I had indicated by saying consensus was to move the article, could you please change that? ROGNNTUDJUU! 14:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:RM for The FU's

Sorry about that. I've taken the necessary steps at Talk:The FU's. Dylan 17:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

My sincere apologies again

For my outburst on the Battle of Halbe talk. Had a bad day at Ikea yesterday, and should probably not have logged into Wiki. Not that that makes it okay. All the best Andreas 09:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. I agree that it is a good co-operation, and I hope we can improve this, and other articles we may end up co-operating on. Andreas 10:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Prince Rupert of the Rhine

hi Philip Baird Shearer, how are you? you helped out once on editing the article above. there is a discussion on renaming it, maybe you care to drop by and share some input? with kind regards... Gryffindor 17:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Peru v Kriegsmarine

Hunting for info. In the article on Peru, the history section states that the Peruvians destroyed a German submarine and a German "battleship": In 1943 the Peruvian navy destroyed a German submarine that had arrived to the port of Callao to get supplies. Peru also sunk another German battleship in 1944. I've found NO evidence for anything like this, even allowing that "battleship" might mean "warship". Have you any evidence? Further problem is that the Peru page is protected and I cannot amend it. Folks at 137 10:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Bangladesh Liberation War

Hello, this has reference to your tag as regarding giving reference to the contents of a section of the captioned page. I have provided 2 links, and removed the tag placed by you. In case, we search, we shall find a number of references in the google. the matter was well documented and reported by media, including the western media. --Bhadani 16:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC) western countries.

Bromyard Downs

Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.

Thanks! Aaronw 14:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Independent school (United Kingdom)

Sorry it may not have been WP:MS and I am sorry if I have caused upset, but somewhere in one of the policies there is the idea that abbreviations should be avoided in titles - such as UK for United Kingdom. It would be fair to assume that UK meant United Kingdom but that isn't the only meaning. This change makes the title more self-explanatory, and brings into line with other United Kingdom related pages that have moved from UK to United Kingdom. The same applies for EU for European Union and US or USA for United States. Davidkinnen 17:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Geneva Convention (1929)

Hi there, I saw that you created the article Geneva Convention (1929). I would like to point out that the lemma as well as the introduction is partly incorrect because there were actually two Geneva Conventions in 1929. In addition to the convention regarding the treatment of POW's which was first adopted in 1929, the first Geneva Convention (adopted in 1864, revised for the first time in 1906) underwent another revision in 1929. So it would be good to either move the article to a new lemma reflecting that the article is about the POW convention, or to extend the article with respective details about the other convention. Best Regards, --Uwe 17:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, signed in Geneva on 27 July 1929. And this is 1929 revision of the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field, also signed in Geneva on 27 July 1929. The Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field was adopted in 1864 and later revised in 1906 and 1929. The Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War was adopted in 1929. From a chronological perspective, the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field was the first Geneva Convention and the Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War was the second Geneva Convention. In the context of the 1949 revisions of both conventions, which is the current revision of all Geneva Conventions, the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field became the Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field and the Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War became the Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. You can also check this chart for more information. --Uwe 18:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Heading links

Hi there, I noticed your revision on List of war crimes re section headings. I've seen this on other articles too - do you know of anywhere in the wp policies that gives guidance on use fo links within section headings? Thanks AndrewRT 16:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant thanks! AndrewRT 10:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

The Mediation Cabal

You are a disputant in a case listed under Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. We invite you to be a mediator in a different case. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
~~~~

--Fasten 13:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Philip, you know very well that the Mediation Cabal is totally voluntary and informal. To say that my requesting mediation -- which is, after all, COOPERATIVE -- is somehow disruptive is truly beyond belief. You clearly have an axe to grind here, and you're trying to shut down debate, and I resent that. --Hyphen5 00:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of Talk:Mercenary

I would like to address your points individually and explain why I feel that these pages should be archived.

A Page is not yet big enough for archiving.

If I make an analogy to piles of paper sitting on a desk: It seems that you are saying that these two-year-old, ratty, unused papers shouldn’t be archived because they are not yet in a large enough pile. I feel that it is an absurd argument to boot and that it is instruction creep to say that they cannot be archived because they “aren’t 32k yet.”

B if it is archived Best to do it with a move not a copy

Perhaps this is true, but moving pages means loosing current discussions. The way I archived the information was logical and fit the flow of the discussions (or so I felt). The resulting talk page was clean and each archive was navigable. Compared to the way it is now, that was an immense improvement for the end user.

Feel free to discuss this here, on my discussion, or on Talk:Mercenary.

Good day, Sir. Dan, the CowMan 01:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your frank response. I am still fairly new here and still learning. No arguments here, case closed. *Shakes hands* Dan, the CowMan 01:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas deBrabant/Nick Knight

Which editors should I speak to, and how do I contact them? I'm new to this process, so please pardon my ignorance as to procedure. The only other Nick Knight article I'm aware of is one that deals with a real life British athlete. Celtic Knight.

Oil (disambiguation) → Oil

Hello. In the interest of building a consensus, I would appreciate any input you (as a recent contributor to these pages) would have regarding the request to move Oil (disambiguation) back to Oil. Thank you, --Kralizec! (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding expanded options and instructions to my move request on Oil (disambiguation) → Oil. This being only my second WP:RM, I am very appreciative of help towards gaining a concensus on the issue. Unfortunately not everyone has caught your modified instructions about only casting support votes, and nearly half the votes are opposing (ironic since all three options are mutually exclusive). --Kralizec! (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

OmegaT page move

Regarding [[Talk:Wikipedia:Leuce/OmegaT]]. Thanks for your help. Erm, should I vote for my own proposal? I hope I've done the steps correctly. leuce 13:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki "Periodic Report of the United States of America to the United Nations Committee Against Torture" to wikisource?

I recommended that Periodic Report of the United States of America to the United Nations Committee Against Torture be moved to wikisource. Like you I made some good faith edits to that article without realizing that it was not a summary of the document, but a cut and paste of the original U.S. press release.

Since you did some work on the article, and stated a concern on the talk page, so I thought you might want to voice an opinion on the transwiki. Have you ever been involved in a transwiki?

Cordially, Geo Swan 21:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Shock and Awe

Hello Mr. Shearer, I don't want to cause any trouble because I'm new here (at least as an editor), so I'd like to talk off the record to a few good contributors about a problem I see on an article that you've edited. Your contributions seem solid, so maybe you can help me. I've been using the Wikipedia definition of "Shock and Awe" for several months because I like how it described the type of warfare that "Shock and Awe" is and also how it gave a link to a definition of "rapid dominance" (of which it claims to be a subset).

In the last couple of days, however, a user called JW1805 edited the article and I think he made the definition much worse.[2] It now says that "Shock and Awe is a military doctrine," whereas is used to say exactly what type of military doctrine it falls into: "Shock and Awe is a method of unconventional warfare." Isn't the old definition more informative? According to the definition of Conventional warfare, I don't think anyone could call it that. So, I think it's safe and informative to say that "Shock and Awe" fits into the definition of unconventional warfare, don't you?

Also JW1805 removed the link to "Rapid dominance," deleted the "Rapid dominance" article and redirected it to "Shock and Awe." Yet the "Shock and Awe" article still says, "Its authors label [shock and awe] a subset of Rapid Dominance." Does that make any sense to you? According to RUSI Journal 141:8-12 Oct '96, "Rapid dominance" is an "intellectual construct" whereas "Shock and awe" is one "method" of implementing that construct. Obviously they are not the same thing. So, why would JW1805 redirect "Rapid dominance" to "Shock and Awe?" Why would he delete the "Rapid dominance" article and the link it?

I went to JW1805's talk page to speak directly to him, but I read what others have said to him, and it seems to be the same story: if you are only one person complaining, JW1805 considers you a troublemaker and has his friends ban you, but if more than one person gets together and says the same thing, he listens. If you feel the same way as I about his edits to "Shock and Awe" and "Rapid dominance," I'm sure we can work together to get the best definition back in place. Are you up for something like that? --Larnue the dormouse 20:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)