User talk:Bsrcrgrieve

Welcome!

Hello, Bsrcrgrieve, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -Razorflame (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link

Hi, that link to a song on Youtube doesn't meet our external link rules - please see Wikipedia:External links. Thanks, Picaroon (t) 02:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[unblock Request: Hi, no disrespect, The term Perfiious Albion was used by Ian Smith to describe the treachery of Britain - fact. This can be substantiated from various reports, his books and even his obituary...http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article2910986.ece I'm pretty new to this and respectfully request your consideration of this and unblocking my access to edit. Also, not sure what error I made on the Youtube link, I emulated the other links almost exactly. Many thanks - and kind regards. BSRCR)]

Perfidious Albion

In the future, please keep in mind WP:3RR: no editor should revert edits to a page more than three times within 24 hours. In this case, you were right and I was wrong on Smith's use of this phrase so I am not interested in administrative intervention.. There's also the fact that no one warned you of WP:3RR in the first place. Regards, Jose João (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CCB2

BSRCR Thank you for your response.

I should clarify my remark "casting the CCB in a POV light" By comparing the CCB to SOE while calling the latter highly successful suggests that the CCB was also highly successful. Besides the fact that it is an unreferenced statement, judgements on the success of a military organisation are highly subjective regardless of the source making them. As you may have experienced, kill statistics may not be accurately estimated, recorded or communicated. Once they are reported in public there is invariably an element of propaganda involved. Second, when the actions of such a military organisation (the CCB, that is) are widely deeemed to be in gross violation of human rights, the notion of success cannot be dealt with without bias towards one side or the other.

On re-looking at it I think you are quite right that the intro is unfair to special forces members who responded to legal orders and acted within the prescripts of the 4th Geneva Convention. The article needs a formulation that is both brief and balanced. Perhaps we can work on something together, bearing in mind that many known operations targeted civilians and non-combatants and therefore fall outside of the 4th convention.

The Malan citation: I think it is preserved in footnote 12. If not i'd be happy to put it back.

Lastly perhaps we should discuss large revisions on this page before making them so that we can avoid this.Suidafrikaan (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

BSRCR . Agree. Have replied to your suggestion on the Talk page --Suidafrikaan (talk) 10:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Awesome Homepage!

Hey, thanks! It took a while to design, though. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]