User talk:PBS/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13
Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your vigilant work and efforts herein, especially on: "Battle of Berlin" & "Battle in Berlin" articles. Kierzek (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)




could you please explain why you removed the Belgian atrocities in the Congo Free State from the List of wars and disasters by death toll?


Haggman —Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC).

Thank you, I see your point now. However, not including the enormous loss of human life in the Congo Free State in this list simply feels wrong to me (and the Atlantic Slave Trade is yet another topic). What about a new section entitled "slavery"?


Haggman (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear Mr. Shearer

Please accept my humble apologies for the extreme lateness in my reply. I can offer no excuse, but I got overwhelmed with various other projects in real life, so I have not been able to contribute. Thank you for your kind words, and I would be honored to offer some ideas for discussion about revisionism. This may be going into original research here, but I think the revisionism page should pay attention to the politics of memory. History may not be politics, but there is a political component in that what people choose to remember and choose to forget about the past does have political resonances. Hope to be able to contribute so more in the new year, and thank you for your kind words. Please accept my best wishes for the New Year.A.S. Brown (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin

Dear Mr. Shearer,

I would like you to look over a current edit conflict going on in the Battle of Berlin article. This one editor, Kierzek, appears to want to pack the article full of extraneous references when my point is that citing 3 authors who all use Krivosheev is redundant. He, however, insists that these are "respected sources" and even went so far as to re-insert a figure of 200,000 wounded which was not in the Mueller but grafted onto it from an East German source by the banned user JohnHistory so as to make his math appear correct (KIA+WIA+POW).

I showed the way that demographic and casualty studies are used in other wiki articles, but Kierzek continues to ignore my presentation and reverts edits even to the point of being nonsensical. For instance, he found issue with me deleting a line on Hamilton (but keeping the reference as a secondary reference to Krivosheev), even when Hamilton in his notes directly cites Krivosheev with an identical casualty figure. Furthermore, I had put in parenthetical "(Overmans, 2000)" to clarify the civilian data that Clodfelter used in his book, but Kierzek disagreed with this and restored the semantically nonsensical line of casualties being "unknown," but 125,000 died. I believe clarifying the statistical work that these historians are citing is important, but to Kierzek, it's either one or the other. He seems to believe that each history text is an independent work unto itself.

I think I am making a legitimate point about how historians use statistical data, namely they get their data from preexisting statistical and archival work, but there's little purpose for me to smash my head against a brick wall when people all have their idiosyncratic interpretations of how history is done. (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a shame I am having to go to another's talk page to apparently state a defense. At any rate, the main reason I reverted the edits by, who is N/K/A Megakedar is because of his approach to editing of the article. It was the method not the content that was the problem. I certainly also want "clarifying" of sources and information. Along with proper citing. I will not bother with the other obtuse assumptions put forth as to what I might believe, as stated above. Thanks, PBS for your helpful comments on the Battle of Berlin talk page and I believe enough has been said. Kierzek (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Greetings again, I have answered a number of your concerns in the Battle of Berlin article. Take a look. Megakedar (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Philip: battle over (the) Battle of Berlin has flared up again; this time as to the "Aftermath" and the raping and killing of Germans by the Soviet troops. See recent days on the article and discussion section. Maybe you could look into it. I am going out of town on business for several days. Thank you. Kierzek (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Second English Civil War

Hi Philip.

Don't like to bother you, but for a while I have been thinking that the article on the Second English Civil War should probably have a brief section on Ireland. Personally, I don't really think it is possible to understand the Royalist strategy in the Second Civil War without reference to Ireland.

For example, the return of Ormonde to Ireland and the subsequent peace of 1648-49; the use of Southern Irish ports as privateer bases by Prince Rupert; and of course the eventual Cromwellian invasion, influenced in part by these developments.

A short section on the developments in Ireland would also provide a connective link between the Cromwellian Invasion of Ireland and the Civil Wars in England.

Inchiquin (talk) 12:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Carson signing Solemn League and Covenant

I know it is a long time ago, wow almost 5 years, but do you recall this image File:Carson signing Solemn League and Covenant.jpg that you uploaded? We are working on upgrading Ireland to GA or maybe FA and while I found a source for the image, I have not found an author or publication date information. Any assistance you can give would be great. I am not watching this page so please drop me a {{talkback}} when you reply. ww2censor (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks anyway for replying. ww2censor (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Terror Bombing, a good but controversial article, ended

Noting the discussion, [1], still I don't see the encyclopedic sensibility or basic logic of subsuming "terror bombing" into 'Strategic Bombing'. Terror bombing's definitional purpose is to induce terror, while strategic bombing's definitional purpose is to raze the enemy's economic capacity. I'm sure there's overlap, both topics are about bombing, but if I were looking for information about terror bombing or a history of that, I certainly wouldn't expect it to be in the strategic bombing section. But my larger point is, you don't generate progress in this encyclopedia by destroying knowledge. Yes, there's completely legitimate disagreement about what terror bombing is and isn't, just as there is disagreement on anything with the word 'terror' attached to it. The duty of an excellent encyclopedia is not to run away from controversy, and certainly not to eliminate content, but to include the disagreement. (As I'm attempting to do in History of Terrorism). Where is the information on terror bombing now? Well, it's largely in the weirdly named Aerial bombing of cities. What do cities have to do with it? Isn't terror basically about bombing civilians, whereever they are, countryside, village, and so on? Even stranger, looks like I agree with Sherzo on this matter (from the basically evenly split discussion on merging): Oppose Terror bombing is a distinct concept with a large enough base of scholarly sources to merit its own article. Sherzo (talk) 09:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Haberstr (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh really?

By you? Are you going to block me yourself or do you intend to find someone who trusts you? Your contributions to that talk page are patently worthless to the article so it might be hard. The only impression I've gotten is that you need to keep on going to show you know something about something, even to the detriment of the now productive discussion initiated by Andrew Lancaster.

So I very correctly do a little resectioning and you get all bent out of shape, and now are making threats because you think I've made you look a little unknowledgeable. Boohoo. Meanwhile you are still contributing nothing of value to the talk page or article. I might report you soon enough. DinDraithou (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kashara

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Kashara has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There is no "town" called "Kashara" in Kursk Oblast. There is no "Kashara Region" either, and only Russian republics have "capitals". There are two villages called "Kashara" (and one "Kasharka") but the information here is not enough to figure out which one is meant. Fallingrain is not a reliable source.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:16, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Last will and testament of Adolf Hitler

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Last will and testament of Adolf Hitler. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Last will and testament of Adolf Hitler. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edit concerning Napoleon at the battle of Waterloo

Dear Mr. Shearer, I have seen your recent edit of the article on the battle of Waterloo. While I agree that the Coalition did not recognize Napoleon as Emperor in 1815, I argue this reason is insufficient in justifying the absence of his rightful Imperial title in an encyclopedic article. Here is why: as you probably know, a French Constitution had been validated by plebiscite on the 1st of June 1815 and this Constitution had put in place the French Empire with Napoleon as Emperor. Thus, taking the view that he was not Emperor in 1815 is adhering to the Coalition's point of view about the nature of the French form of government, an issue that was actually strictly within the scope of French internal affairs. The issue of the recognition of the regime was at the time of a strictly political nature and was usually settled in peace treaties (e.g. Napoleon was recognized as Emperor of the French and King of Italy by Russia and Austria after he beat those countries and made peace with them, in 1805 and 1807 respectively). Moreover and even more importantly, historians take the view that Napoleon was Emperor in 1815. I quote the example of specialists such as Jean Tulard or Britisher Richard Homes who naturally speak of the 'Emperor'/'emperor' in 1815, when talking about Napoleon. Also, D. Smith repeatedly speaks about 'Napoleon' rather than of 'Bonaparte' or 'Napoleon Bonaparte' (including in the chapter about the battle of Waterloo). I believe that these arguments are encyclopedically-sensible and the mainstream on the matter and thus I have re-inserted Napoleon's Imperial title in the lead of the article about the battle of Waterloo. Best,--Alexandru.demian (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Definition of terrorism

The list of definitions under "Scholars and other Individuals" is even worst. I´m tempted to delete it.-- Bonifacius 08:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to split the article, having one for the international definition and one for the domestic ones?-- Bonifacius 08:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I see what you`ve done. The problem is that the whole controversy - the difficulties to define terrorism are at the international level. At the national level, each state defines terrorism as it pleases. Right now, the lead and the 2 first sections also refer to the international level.-- Bonifacius 09:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to the discussion. Obviously, describing a particular act or group as terrorist might be contentious, and so the ban, but that is not the point of this article. As I see it, and I might be wrong, it is about the legal definition of terrorism in legal treaties and municipal laws, which is rather objective.
Indeed, municipal laws could make evident the diferent interpretations to terrorism. But the list would have to be far more comprehensive than what we have now. And problably, it would require some "original research", at least to highlight the differences. Those laws are easily found - and in English- in the national reports to the Security Council CTC. But just reading them is an enormous amount of work.
My point with the scholarly definitions is about notability. Are any of these important? I don't know. They clearly are not at the level of importance of Kofi Annan. Perhaps it would be necessary to give some qualification of who are these people and why they are being quoted.
Thanks !!-- Bonifacius 09:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I do like your solution for spliting Genocide. You are right, eventually we should adopt a simmilar solution for this page.
Here is a case in point with the scholars' definition: Look at the first one, by Raffoul Saadeh . There is no citation. Acording to the history, he added it himself:
(cur) (prev) 21:09, 20 January 2010 Rls68 (talk | contribs) m (38,070 bytes) (Moved up my definition to coincide with the chronological order) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 16:24, 8 December 2009 Rls68 (talk | contribs) m (39,400 bytes) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 13:56, 8 December 2009 Rls68 (talk | contribs) (39,400 bytes) (undo)
And the only Raffoul Saadeh that I can find is an undergraduate at Georgetown. [See] I don´t now if he is the same one that is being quoted. Notability? -- Bonifacius 11:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

the definition subjective?

PBS, the definition of terrorism in political or journalistic discourse might be subjective, the definition used a criminal legal context cannot be. Due process requires legal precision. The different legal interpretations of the geneva protocols cannot be brushed aside just as a political question. Terrorism and the laws of war (International humanitarian law) desperatedly needs some work.-- Bonifacius 13:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Khaldei's photo

I see you fixed the RfC title. I appreciate it. I also realise that, since this is a first time when I initiate RfC, I did that in not an optimal way. Feel free to further modify my post if it needs in additional improvements.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

terrorism and laws of war

PBS: I`ll be happy deleting it. I did not want to do it beacuse, as far as I see, its content had been hanging to the page on International conventions on terrorism for about four years without you taking issue. I would also delete the couple of paragraph from this text that seem to have contaminated the definition of terrorism one.-- Bonifacius 05:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't you dare...

...patronise me. How about you actually do something productive? J Milburn (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I ask you not to patronise me, and then you remind me that "Removing warnings from ones user page is taken as proof that you have read the warning"? It's nice that you're doing something useful, but that doesn't mean it's ok to then go and do something not useful, otherwise I would have, by now, built up enough credit to block you and call you all sorts of nasty things. Leave me alone, please. If you want to discuss issues reasonably on an article talk page, I'm happy to join in. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, those comments really were over-aggressive. Now I've slept on them, I feel quite ashamed. Thank you for your advice, and I'm sorry if this whole affair has made me appear a lot more angry and aggressive than I am. J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

Dear PBS,
Unfortunately, you formally cannot re-insert a contested image into the Battle of Berlin infobox: the burden of evidence rests with those who adds/restores non-free material, not with those who remove it, and 3RR is hardly applicable here. The best solution would be to wait until RfC is closed. It is quite possible that your premature attempts to restore the image may be used as a pretext to question the results of RfC.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
PS. Feel free to remove this post if you disagreed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Blair Worden

An article having been created, it needs work. Thought you might be able to help. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Irish Manual of Style link

FYI, I have requested that ArbCom confirm that Ireland-naming discussion process is complete. -- RA (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


{{Worcs Mar2010}}

RfC on template:referenced

Thanks for closing this RfC contrary to your personal opinion. It's good to see editors with the necessary detachment between what they prefer and what the current consensus turns out to be. Fram (talk) 08:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:WORCS

Welcome aboard no.15 - I look forward to your edits! GyroMagician (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphan tags in general

I left you a specific reply on my talk page which I hope you'll read. It's not long. You have a reasonable idea, but I haven't formed an opinion yet. My instinct is to be conservative until there is wider discussion. The upside is less clutter. The downside is that most problematic pages are orphans and most orphans are less likely to be wanted pages. It's undeniable that orphan status is a positive correlate with other article issues. Because orphan status is so easily [automatically] determined, it serves as a useful proxy. Removing it from casual browsers would remove that signaling. Of course automated tools would still have it, but my hunch is individual edits, rather than automated ones are the real fixers of the orphan problem. Similarly, I wonder if the page view stats would support the notion that visible orphan templates are that damaging. Orphans by definition are only reachable by either off-wiki links, or direct searches.

I look forward to further discussion, and like I said, I think this needs a wider audience than the policy talk page. Again, thank you for being so open with me and directing it to my attention. I really do appreciate that. Shadowjams (talk) 08:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, PBS. You have new messages at Template talk:Citation-attribution.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


It is always gratifying when someone creates an article for something which I have mentioned when creating an earler article without knowing much about. Noble work Regards Motmit (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Stub Sorting: You can help!

Puzzle stub cropped.png
Hello PBS. Thank you for tagging Sir Thomas Gower, 1st Baronet as a stub. I noticed that you used the {{stub}} template. In the future, it would be greatly appreciated if you could sort the article to a subcategory by using one of these templates instead. For example, you can use {{US-novelist-1960s-stub}} for an American novelist born in the 1960s. Of course, if you can't find a proper category, you can always use the {{stub}} tag and someone else will sort it for you, or you can propose a new stub template or category here. Thanks!

Gosox(55)(55) 22:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Robert Holborne

You might be interested in looking at Talk:Robert Holborne -- PBS (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Why would I be especially interested in that? Thue | talk 10:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Explusion of Germans

I understand why you removed the Algerian War and the slave trade from the list of genocides, but why did you remove the expulsions of Germans after World War II? There was a lot of references for that part. It seems obviously genocide to me, although I know it's not a well-known event outside Germany. Epa101 (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed that the table looked very different, clicked on the history and saw three edits by you for Algeria, Germans and slavery. I didn't read closely enough. Epa101 (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


That was a very interesting article and I'm glad you sent it to me. I was unaware that the USA has never ratified the Genocide Convention. I was not proposing to add the bombing of Hamburg to the list; I was using Nolte's description of it as "genocide" to show that there are opinions held by just the odd scholar and it's not clear what threshold the article requires for an alleged genocide to be included. I noticed Telford Taylor's article was written back in 1982. The concept "genocide" expanded hugely when the Srebenica massacre was described as "genocide". I hope I don't sound insensitive to the victims, but I don't see how Srebenica was different from what has happened in most wars in history. Now that one massacre is defined as genocide, virtually every war could be said to have had at least one act of genocide in it. We are obliged to include Srebenica since that is officially "genocide", but we need to decide what to do about other cases. There is also a difficulty with alleged genocides that have not been studied widely, such as the Zanzibar case. Epa101 (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've read the articles you've sent me. This is purely my opinion and not something I'm proposing about the content of Wikipedia. If Srebenica was "genocide" because it aimed to eliminate part of the Bosnian Muslim population, then I can't see how the firebombings of Dresden and Hamburg, and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can be anything other than "genocide". Taylor said that these bombings were part of a war, but so was Srebenica. I'd say that the My Lai massacre has to be seen as "genocide" since women and children were killed in it whereas they were mostly spared at Srebenica.
One case in which the term "genocide" is used very extensively is Ward Churchill's book A Small Matter of Genocide: he includes the imperial wars fought by Britain, France, etc., the Crusades and the Vietnam War as "genocide". It seems to include too much but his concepts were consistent as far as I noticed. Epa101 (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

talk pages

Actually, in hindsight, I was a bit cheeky there. I think you erred in cross-posting as you did, but neither thinking that, nor even being right about it, gives me carte blanche to roll you back like that. We are none of us perfectly consistent all of the time, and I now recognise that I behaved somewhat more impulsively and aggressively that day than I normally would. Please accept my apology for needlessly stirring you up. Hesperian 05:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

new wikiproject

Hi. I noted your new wikiproject had been inadvertently set up in main namespace (ie. as an article). I have moved it to wp namespace, the usual haunt of project pages. (Now Wikipedia:WikiProject Wars of the Three Kingdoms and the Interregnum. There's a redirect in place at the original location. I've changed some of your links to the new page. When you are ready, you should probably put the original (now redirect) page up for speedy delete. Gwinva (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the heads-up. Amazing how it is all because his 'noble' efforts to get another user unblocked failed, nothing to do with his own editing restrictions.Webley442 (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Zieten Hussars

Hello. I was mildly astonished to see that you undid my expansion and subsequent move to an up-to-date name of that article. There is clear evidence from German websites and books that the Zieten Hussars were later incorporated into the Hussar Regiment No. 3 of the Prussian and then Imperial German army. This website offers a comprehensive history of the regiment, but alas, in German. I am really tempted to restore my new version, moreover since the German Wiki is consistent with it. De728631 (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is an additional English source that connects the Zieten Hussars to the Imperial regiment Nr. 3. Also, the relevant part on the German Wiki reads: "In the course of reforms within the Prussian army, the regiment No. 3 was newly raised and took part in the Coalition wars, but only in 1861 after long struggling the tradition of the old Prussian hussar regiment H2 was recognized (sourced: Hans Bleckwenn: Die friderizianischen Uniformen 1753-1786, vol III etc.)" That said, I'm now going to move the article back to the Imperial regimental titling. De728631 (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. On a second thought I could also go down that road and call your two reverts of a well-sourced expansion of an article disruptive as well. :) De728631 (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
As stated on the article talk page, I have now requested a third opinion, namely at WP:ANI. This is not meant to be personally against you but I simply don't like to be called disruptive for what I perceive a valid and productive contribution to Wikipedia - so let's hear someone else's thoughts. De728631 (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
As ANI was seemingly not in charge of it, I listed it at Wikipedia:Third opinion instead. De728631 (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Having read your chronology on ANI I feel bad now for having totally missed your first comment on the article talk page, which is where should have looked first of all. So I'd like to apologize for the re-revert. This should of course have been discussed in the article talk, not here. De728631 (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Robert Peake the Elder

Unfortunately I am unable to revert your foolish move of this article, so will ask you to do so. Anyone else might have had a moment's thought before moving a FA, or perhaps looked to see how the external links to the National Portrait Gallery or Metropolitan Museum, NY treat the name. Or looked at how other sources treat the name, or indeed others in this format. Like say William Pitt the Younger. Or thought of following procedure and opening a debate. But not you. Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, PBS. You have new messages at Talk:Zieten Hussars.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Third opinion requested

Hello. Since you've been involved with discussions about User:100110100 before, please may I ask you to comment on this case which I've brought up on Father Goose's talkpage. Thank you, yours almost-instinct 19:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Grand slam bomb.jpg

Hello. Someone left me a message on Commons asking for a source for File:Grand slam bomb.jpg. Do you recall where it came from? If so, it would be great if you could update the description. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


Well done on closing down that sock of Sherzo's. I should have moved on it some time ago as it was quite obvious (to me at least), but didn't as I am never quite sure what constitutes sufficient 'evidence' for other observers. In recent times I have realised how endemic sock puppetry is here on Wikipedia, to the point of wondering if its worth my time continuing to contribute to the project. One long-standing and evidently respected editor recently stated that if the contributions of socks on contentious articles were effectively sanctioned by removal, Wikipedia would be 'eviscerated'. Just thinking out loud. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, PBS. You have new messages at Casablanca2000in's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Editing of Anthony Hungerford

Dear Phillip,

My comments regarding your editing of this site are not hostility, they are upset!

I have only ever place three entries onto Wikipadia, and am the first to acknowledge that I have not made myself fully aware to the protocols of the site. After some 30 years of researching my ancestry, my primary aim was to share the information garnered on those few individuals who have been somewhat prominent in history.

My upset comes from the fact that the editing was not sympathetic. You seem to have just wiped the article and started again. The upshot was that instead of leaving the information on the page [after all it has been there for some time-what is the rush to change it?] and asking for clarification, certain aspects just disappeared.

If I understand it correctly, it seems that Wikipedia prefers to quote as a source from the Calendars of State Papers – because a contributor to DNB or ODNB [a secondary source] has seen it, and delete my other quote from the Calendar of State Papers with source reference-because I have seen it personally in a printed book of the Calendars?

Likewise, as I mentioned to you in my email, it was obvious that the authors of both the old DNB and the ODNB did not actually know the origins of Colonel Hungerford-they both speculated. Whereas my later research had got nearer to the truth with my finding details given by Colonel Hungerford to the Ulster Herald, when he arrived in Ireland with his Regiment –which you confirmed with the full reference –

• Dublin: National Library of Ireland, Genealogical Office: Ms.45, pp.59-60: "Certificate of Arms to Col. Anthony Hungerford of Marson in Wiltshire and his pedigree. He arrived with his Regiment in D]ublin, April 30, 1647." • Dublin: National Library of Ireland, Genealogical Office: Ms.45, p.62 Certificate of Arms and cadency to Ensign St. John Hungerford, third brother of and ensign to Col. Anthony Hungerford, May 12, 1647.

I apologise if I have been too harsh in my comments to you, but you must understand that it was basic sourced information, which at the time was not on the internet, that I was seeking to share with Wikipedia readers, not style, rules and display. I hope you have not finished with your editing. If you require any further clarifications please contact me. user:coningbmw 11:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


Where do we point the POV warriors to when they want to continue to re-add attribution and eliminate ASF policy. QuackGuru (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a new essay called "Balanced point of view (BPOV)" that includes a concise explanation of facts and opinions. QuackGuru (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the essay is ready for essay space. I can formally start a new page at Wikipedia:Balanced point of view. It is for editors who prefer a detailed and clear explanation on how to balance different viewpoints. QuackGuru (talk) 08:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobody would read an essay as an alternative to NPOV. For now NPOV has been restored. QuackGuru (talk) 06:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that your comments on ASF have been moved to a "Discussion" subsection. If you intended to add a vote in favor of the "A simple formulation" version then it's worth making that clear in the RfC section itself—I don't think there was any intent to push you out of the section, just to keep the RfC a concise tally of where people stand on the two versions. Rvcx (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


You had more involvement with this editor than I - do (talk · contribs)'s contributions look similar?   pablohablo. 21:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Equipment & Weapons- English Civil War

Hi Philip, I have a query on the above if you get a free moment.

Many years ago, I came across an old book on the English Civil War by a writer by the name of Hawthornwaithe (going off memory). The book had some handy details on things like the cost of equipment and weapons for the armies fighting in England during the Civil War. Unfortunately I can't get hold of this book any more and I think it may be out of print.

I mentioned to you before that I do a fair bit of writing on the Irish conflict of the 1640s. In relation to one of the articles I have been writing I was hoping to get some details of the kind mentioned above- the cost of equipment and weapons in England during the 1640s. I was wondering if you have any idea of any sources (modern or whatever) with information related to this?.

Thanks for your attention, Inchiquin (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Philip thanks for your help with those sources a few weeks back. I appreciate the assistance. Inchiquin (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

List of events named massacres

Hi, you are named on the talk page as actively involved with this article: RfC please here [[2]]. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Battle of the Imjin River

I notice you created this article back in 2004 regarding the Glosters at Hill 235. And that you are an admin.

Starting in January a user called Jim101 has begun altering the Imjin River article by adding information regarding the other UN contingents in the battle.

I am well aware that other forces, including the US, Philippines and the 1ROK division took part but they DID not fight in the region that is known in the UK as Battle of the Imjin River. It was solely a British action, and a heroic on at that!

Edits like this come down to the problem that one name means many things to many people. But seeing as you started this article, and you are from the Gloucestershire and Worcestershire area, I conclude that you begun the article with the spirit of the Glosters in mind.

Do you want this article to become an open-ended article that covers "Uncle Tom Cobbly and all" while downplaying the Glosters role as just one fight among many? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin 2

Please explain your last revert. I made a change that includes your wishes. I would like to be wrong but your stubborn reverts make impression that you are determined to preserve your version unchanged by all means.--MathFacts (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Polish–Teutonic War (1431–1435)

IMO this conflict deserves its own article as a civil war in LT. I added some refs to that effect there. You recently stated your opinion at this talk page, opining that it needed a formal WP:RM; could you pls weigh in there again? Novickas (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I over-wrote the redirect with a new article. Novickas (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


Yes. Then I didn't know what a topic ban in the broad sense was. I found it out after. Thanks. PS. any comments on the AG recognition move? Aregakn (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


The proposal has been changed to address your and others concerns or at-least I hope they've been addressed. If they haven't can you please expand and clarify your objections ?Gnevin (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Polish–Teutonic War (1431–1435)

Where do you see the consensus for moving that page? Please undo the disruptive move.  Dr. Loosmark  21:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, PBS. You have new messages at Student7's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armenian Genocide reparations

Happy with what you did? Now we have Hittit coming back in 2 weeks and making the same "proposal". I wonder what your actions and comments will be. Aregakn (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course you'd have said nothing to a person advocating your POV even in that manner, and this is what happened. Anyways, please answer my comments on the reparations talk-page. Yet no proof presented of a POV. Aregakn (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Horse chestnut

Hi, your move of the disambiguation page and then redirect of the tree name to the scientific name is creating a mess. Can we just put "Horse chestnut" back as the disambig and restore the proper links? Or something to clean up the redirects? Xqbot just redirected a horse article to the tree article. I have no axe to grind in the disambiguation wars, I could care less what the disambig page name is, but it's just a huge pain in the butt when they get changed and then not COMPLETELY changed. I fixed the one I found, but if you can see if there is further cleanup -- or something. The disambiguation page now also has a double redirect to the scientific name of the tree, too. Montanabw(talk) 19:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Happy Philip Baird Shearer's Day!

Featured article star.svg

User:Philip Baird Shearer has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Philip Baird Shearer's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Philip Baird Shearer!

01:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. RlevseTalk 01:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi, I am currently involved in a proposal for a guideline on primary, secondary and tertiary sources. I have just discovered that you were once involved in a similar proposal a while ago - either in contributing to it directly or in discussing it on its talk page. You may wish to get involved in the current proposal and I would encourage you to do so - even if you just want to point out where we have gone wrong! Yaris678 (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin. Aftermath

Dear PBS, although your edits[3] are generally good, it seems to me that you didn't finish them. For instance, the sentence "During and in the days immediately following the assault,[1] and then gradually subsided.[2]" has no subject. Although I can fix it, I am not sure I will transmit your initial thought correctly. Could you please finish the work you started?
Sincerely,--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring, reverting reverts

The advice I am following is given in WP:Source "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source" and "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."

The policy is clear it must be sourced, and it is my understanding that is the decider. I am not going to say I am perfect with my edits but I respect the right of any editor to remove any unsourced edit I make and replace it with a sourced one WP:Burden.

I am happy to discuss changes on discussion pages. I agree with your current edit to the [The Protectorate] and have no further comment on that. I hope that we can achieve consensus on the other articles. If not I am happy to go to WP:RFC / WP:dispute resolution as required. --Utinomen (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"the text has been there a long time and the emphasis on sources was far less in the past." It may have been there a long time and it may have been inaccurate all that time. More reason surely, for editors to get editing?
"There is nothing in the text which expresses anything but the majority point of view" Whose point of view? How do I as a reader, let alone an editor, know if an article is correct or simply someones pov? Clearly there is an issue with the anglocentric pov of some of the articles, something, for example, which I duly indicated on Talk:Restoration_(England) on 21 December 2009.
"if there are any sentences for which you specifically thing that a source is needed then you can always use the {{tl:citation needed}} template". I do.--Utinomen (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Alledged edit warring

Last time we talked we were discussing the subject in the talk page like civilized people now you threaten me with banning me,im no expert but that sounds like an abuse of powers to me. Anything you say i did wrong goes to yourself too, you didnt go to the dispute resolution,you didtn go to the third opinion or any of those mediators you list,it takes 2 people for an edit war to occur and if that was an edit warring you took part of it and share the responsibility and the blame so please dont be accusing people like you're guiltless. Go ahead and block me,you know its going to backfire cause i didnt do anything wrong.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong,i didnt even brake the 3RR,i've barely reverted one time so i find it a low punch that you try to label that as an edit war and i've been putting my arguments on the talk page so i really dont understand where this unpolitical behaviour of yours comes from.Please dont threaten me like that again cause your disrupting what was being a normal discusion.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Henry VIII

Why is everyone so sensitive about removing a re-direct? Where's the harm? SE7Talk/Contribs 09:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Why are you being confrontational? SE7Talk/Contribs 11:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Why would you revert them? What's such a big deal that you need to revert them or somehow people will start complaining? The reason I have made this edits is that one of the most common complains about Wikipedia that I hear from semi- or non-Wikipedians is a dislike for the re-directs. Now, perhaps in the world of Wikipedia, what the outside world thinks is irrelevant, but it isn't - Wikipedia ought to be as user-friendly as possible, and by "fixing" re-directs, one does not make it less user-friendly, one makes it more easy. The reasons provided in that Wikipedia guide don't really apply here - I'm not trying to make Wikipedia run faster, and there is no future article just waiting to be written at Henry VIII. SE7Talk/Contribs 11:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
      • 1. ask yourself "how does it not?" 2. People who complain to me about Wikipedia tell me they don't like the sometimes-constant re-directs. SE7Talk/Contribs 11:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
          • not sure how I can explain it anymore. SE7Talk/Contribs 11:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Convention Parliament of 1399

I have added this matter to Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Convention_Parliament_of_1399--Utinomen (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Plagiarism Talk page discussion

No, I did not understand your second serious mangling of your own thoughts there. Actually, I found

.... but is not a simple copyright issue that that is incomparability with copyleft licensing

about as incomprehensible as that first sentence of yours I couldn't make out. What are you saying? Are you talking about how a simply copyright issue compares to copyleft? How simple copyright itself compares with copyleft? I started a sentence with "Yes, ..." in my response not to agree with whatever you might have been saying there, but rather from just wildly guessing, from your mention of copyleft, and from my own experience of people's misconceptions about it, that it had something to do with people thinking copyleft requires no attribution.

I've put a lot of work into trying to make myself clear on this issue. If you think I was unclear somewhere, please tell me -- I want to get better. In the process, I've made some errors, some of which I've openly corrected, some others that I haven't gotten to yet (and might never) and undoubtedly some I haven't noticed yet. If errors crept in it was because I was doing a lot of work -- nobody can be perfect all the time, especially when they are working hard.

You responded as if I've done none of that work. Worse, you continue to respond here as if I've done none of that work. You didn't do a whole lot of work yourself, on that Talk page: you just start off as if I've not been discussing this at length for a week, continue mostly not even addressing the readability/relevance issues I raised on my comment, and conclude by hitting "Save page" without even carefully reviewing your comment to make sure it made sense all the way through.

You say I seem to be violating AGF -- an accusation which, when it's done without showing that you've followed at least some of that long discussion, and without pointing up evidence for bad faith in my what I said, only shows that you are not commenting in good faith.

With your "if all you have is a hammer ...." you implicitly insult me as dim and uninformed. Here's the deal on that: if you've actually got a nail, you should use a hammer.

Is there a nail here? Yes. I saw plagiarism: something had to have been copied from something else, without attribution.

But what about the copyvio "screwdriver" instead the plagiarism "hammer"? First, you ought to show for certain that copyvio applies. On the first few comparisons, I didn't know whether it was copyright violation or not. In fact, I still don't.

If the earliest version of Daniel Ellsberg containing the copied text (which ended up on the cited website that didn't credit Wikipedia as the source) had itself been largely copied by the editor who first supplied, but from some PD source not yet identified, what we'd be looking at there would be multiple plagiarism (unattributed PD source to WP, then WP to site not attributing to WP). And yet it would still fall short of copyright violation, because the ultimate source would be PD. However, it was unambiguously plagiarism. So I called it what it most clearly was. That's not indiscriminately using the same conceptual tool (the "hammer" of "plagiarism") on all problems. No, what I did was carefully select the right term. Which is to say, quite the opposite of the fault you thought you saw in my actions, when you led off with the old saying about hammers and nails.

Given all that: do you really think I have no right to be angry at you? Are you really going to press for an apology about a few testy comments stemming from your failure to carefully review your comment before hitting "Save page"? Comments I made while (in good faith) trying to figure out what the hell you were incoherently saying, in what you admitted was a state of ignorance about the previous discussion (an ignorance that was your choice, not mine)? Comments to which I otherwise responded coherently (I think, anyway; tell me where I was unclear) with actual information?

Do you feel you are owed some apology, but owe me none? Yakushima (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Bombing of Dresden

I reverted your move for the Bombing of Dresden article, See Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II#Moving page from World War II to Second World War for an explanation. -- PBS (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Replied on talkpage: The move followed existing guidelines - WP:TIES. This is a topic about a European event, and so would normally follow European terminology (Second World War is the usage outside of America). The American air force were involved, and that adds an extra dimension, however, as it was mainly a British operation against a German city, and the terms "Second World War" are already used in the article, it is an appropriate move and I wouldn't have thought would be contentious. A possibility is simply renaming it Bombing of Dresden - which is what the German language and other language articles do. SilkTork *YES! 09:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Definitions of terrorism

Re your revert: [4]... WTF?! How can a "see also" wikilink to list of organisations defined as being terrorist organisations by various governments not be relevant to a section that details what various national governments define as terrorism?! Nuwewsco (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

External links

What part of WP:V says "related reading or external links" do not count as references" RE: edit ?JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Response at User talk:Jeepday JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


Nah, I don't think so. Stop creating trouble where there isn't any. You were the only one to object. And I don't know where you come from, but what I posted was in now way disruptive. I was going to ignore you, given you don’t seem to be able to discern disruption (Kurfurst) and levelling totally absurd accusations at me. So until you can behave sensibly, and cease looking for any excuse to have a go, then I would appreciate it if you would leave me alone. Dapi89 (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


I have done as you suggest. Regards SilkTork *YES! 08:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


Hello, I think you may be interested in this discussion. You're mentioned by another editor User:Dapi89 who's making allegations in regards to you and so I thought you should be aware of this. Thanks. Caden cool 22:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


To my mind, the correct title of this article should be Ruhr region or Ruhr district. See Talk:Ruhr. Wikiwiserick (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The following statement suggests that "the Ruhr" is wrongly used by several native speakers of English for the German word Ruhrgebiet:

  • "But what is 'The Ruhr' – about which every Anglo-Saxon schoolboy has heard? Few foreigners know that in fact 'the Ruhr' is the name of a 150-mile-long Rhine right-bank tributary which, after meandering through the industrial basin now named after it, enters its parent near Europe's greatest inland port, Duisburg." See German International, Volume 10 (1966), p. 30. Wikiwiserick (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that, according to Webster’s Dictionary, the first meaning of "Ruhr" is a river in West Germany and only the second meaning (derived from the name of the river) is a mining and industrial region. As a Google search shows, "the Ruhr" has 311,000 results (referring to the river and the region), but, surprisingly, "the Ruhr region" has 776,000 results and "the Ruhr district" 407,000 results. The question is, what is the most appropriate title for the Wikipedia article dealing with the region?

An alternative may be to create a disambiguation page, for example:

Ruhr (disambiguation)

Ruhr may refer to

Wikiwiserick (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


Regarding this reversion, is it actually true that "most denialism is historical denialism not scientific denialism"? Honest question, though I'm not even sure if it's an answerable question, really. Quantification would prove...difficult.

In any case, I think there might be a workable middle ground. Using the Specter book review seems like a weak source compared to the academic work I had cited (which is also used later, in more detail, in the article). If you took out specific references to "scientific consensus", I think the description works well for historical denialism as well. I'd suggest:

Denialism is the employment of rhetorical arguments to falsely produce the appearance of legitimate academic debate regarding subjects on which a consensus exists in the relevant academic field, with the ultimate goal of rejecting the established consensus.<ref name=Diethelm/>

Perhaps it's a bit wordy, but I think it's more explanatory. What do you think? — Scientizzle 02:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my jumping into this section. I came by to ask about this comment [5] which I'm not sure I'm fully grasping. Have a great weekend. Freakshownerd (talk) 04:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

And for what it's worth (having just read the comments above) I much prefer Scientizzle's definition over what's in the article now which seems opinionated and seems to me to be a poor summary of what is meant by the term. Freakshownerd (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Descriptive & segmented article titles

As a matter of courtesy, I am notifying you that I have revered[6] archiving of the thread at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Descriptive & segmented article titles.

I think this addtion of the archive template[7] is unnecessary, discourteous and was carried out in underhand manner. Its unnecessary to archive discussion, even if you disagree with some of the points raised in it; there is no point to attack the discussion itself, when it is actually the arguments within it that are objectionable to you. It is discourteous to other editors who may wish to continue the discussion, and runs contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia:Civility. And lastly it was carried out in underhand manner, because you did not sign your name, but "hid" behind that of Erachima.

I think it fair that I can speak my mind to you on this talk page, I would ask you put aside your annoyances, and allow yourself to view things from the other of the argument as well as your own. If you can to that, it is possible to see there are two sides to a dialogue, and "archiving" a discussion is not the way of facilitating constructive dialogue. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


Dear PBS

I am still somewhat uneasy over the alacrity shown by yourself, as Wikipedia administrator 'PBS', to 'block' me indefinitely recently.

I was very affronted, although a positive feature was the mirth it provided my wife and family members, especially when thet noted that my judge and jury administrator, who espouses such high standards, should refer to Sir Derek Wanless as a 'big swing dick' on the open NatWest discussion page. This old reprobate would have used somewhat different terminolgy, although I get your point. I have managed over 40 years without a character blot, not even points on my driving licence, yet, a proverbial 2 minutes on Wikipedia, and I am blocked 'indefinitely', albeit, subsequently released blinking into the sunlight on one month's conditional parole ! I can understand the family's schadenfreude.

Let me make absolutely clear, I fully understand and respect that it is your prerogative to police the Wikipedia site, as it is mine to express my trenchant views with courtesy. My pejorative view, if you will excuse me saying so, is that the authority given to administrators has to be very carefully 'administered', if a perception of megalomania is to be avoided. We are all pestered for our feedback experience, be it as a customer, a user, or as a patient. They even stop us in the street with their clip-boards, such is its importance. So I provide my two penn'orth for you to assimilate this user's experoence. If Jimmy Wales really wishes the editorial privilige to be open to all, then the need for childish community rules, akin to playground gang culture, and the proliferation of esoteirc terminoligy, like sockpuppet, really needs to be examined closely. Of course, serious breaches of editorial conduct, and serial offenders of those breaches need to be removed, that much is understood, although please don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Please keep a sensible perspective.To block good faith, albeit novice editors indefinitely, is crassly absurd, viewed through my eyes.

As you now know, when I edited the NatWest site it was with a factual and succinct BBC quote. It was done in some haste, and it is well within my compass to improve the format. That however is a silly nuance, when judging style over substance as I said previously. I do not understand why other readers could not simply add quotation marks, instead of griping over the format. How to win friends and influence people eh !

Given my ire at another editor ( Chrisieboy ) continually deleting my good faith edit, with scant explanation, I reinstated it under a new login name ( the community calls it a sockpuppet ) of 'ratifybeforeundoing'. It was obviously me - it was reinstating my original edit to the article for goodnesss sake. Did you truly believe that there was some sinister intent ? I was simply registering my disapproval at User-Chrisieboy's actions. Anyway, that duststorm has passed, and it is time to move on. But hold on one minute ........

I have viewed the NatWest discussion page. I am not permitted to edit it for one month ! You may recall me questioning User - Chrisieboy's agenda and motivation for his paranoid tenacity to see my edit removed. I ruminated out loud as to whether these corporate sites enlist some editors to keep the site sanitised, irrespective of the factual and balanced nature of edits. I even suggested that you may like to monitor this site, as I suspected there may be further attempts to remove the edit. You shouted NO in response to this, as 'Chrisieboy' is deemed a respectable and law abiding member of the 'community', unlike moi.

Well - take a look at the last entry on the NatWest discussion page. Despite the consensus formed that the edit was justified as relevant and respectably sourced, Chrisieboy appears to only accept a consensus when it is in his favour. So much for community rules ! As I suspected, and said as much, he will not rest until he sees this edit removed. Perhaps an administrator could now explain to Chrisieboy that a consensus has already been achieved. As for his absurd comment about the 'buck stopping' with the (often only part-time) Chairman, not the CEO, this is very naive. The Chairman heads the Board, the CEO heads the Executive. The CEO holds all the levers, which is why their head rolls when things go awry. What next, are we to argue that Sir Fred Goodwin was not responsible for the RBS crisis ? It is absurd. If anone is looking for a litmus test, as proof of Sir Derek Wanless' reckless and imprudent judgment, just fast forward to Northen Rock Bank in 2007, from where Sir Derek Wanless was again ousted for failure.

I trust that my forthright views on this can be apprecaited. I will observe my parole conditions and not edit NatWest, or edit the NatWest discussion page for one month, after that I will reformat my edit to improve its readabilty. Something that was always withion my compass, although my focus, as you know, was on substance. This is a lengthy post, for which I apologise, although I trust that you can understand and appreciate my desire to clear the air.

(Veracitycounts (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC))


Enough said. I believe we have now cleared the air over this matter, and there is a mutual understanding of the other's perspective. 'Understanding' is slightly different to 'agreement' of course, nevertheless, despite the nuance it is an amicable state. Like Tony Hayward, I feel I now want my life back !

Just one final joust if I may, on some unfinished business. I note that 'administrators do not like to have their judgement questioned'. Understood, yet, you are content for user 'Chrisieboy' to thumb his nose at Wikipedia's authority ? Contemporaneous with my blocking, you (and Moonriddengirl) both agreed that the BBC text I edited to 'NatWest', was relevant to the bank's takeover in 1999/2000. Many, I know, considered Derek Wanless was as central to NatWest's situation in 1999, as Fred Goodwin was to RBS in 2007. Indeed, you agreed that a consensus had been reached, and the referenced quote could hence remain.

Why then, despite this common sense consensus, has user Chrisiboy yet again undone this edit ? I am sorry, but I am no mug, no spring chicken, and I have been around the block a few times. I tell you - that man has an agenda ! If, as you say, administrators value their authority, and the need for it to be respected for the successful operation of Wikipedia, why is Chrisieboy allowed to vandalise with impunity ?

I appreciated your kind courtesy in responding to my last post, although I refuse to leave this subject unfinished. Some two weeks ago, I published in good faith a short BBC quote on the NatWest page. Its validity was endorsed with a consensus, yet, another editor (Chrisieboy) is free to continually remove it - why ? If Wikipedia values style before substance I am perfectly happy to 'tart-up' my edit, albeit somewhat unnecessary. But, why is it being continually removed ? I do not understand, and, frankly, it is becoming sinister !

Attached below is an extract from the minutes of the Commons All Party Treasury Select Committee. They held a detailed and forensic enquiry into the failure at Northern Rock in 2007, where Wanless was Head of Risk. The full transcript is available online, although I have copied below one salient extract. It is Q472, and is verbatim, an exchange between the Committee's Chairman Lord McFall, and Sir Derek Wanless. I suspect that you can now add Lord McFall to that consensus. The views of Lord McFall and his Committee hold far greater sway in my opinion, than those of user Chrisieboy.

I should be most appreciative if you could now restore my orginal edit, and post an explanation on the NatWest discussion page, as I am on 'good faith' not to do so.

Q472 Chairman: The reason I am asking that, Mr Wanless, is I looked up the BBC website before I came and you are the only one with experience of retail banking but it was with NatWest, and what the BBC were saying in their website was that you "were seen as having driven NatWest into an ill-advised series of deals, in particular a foray into the highly competitive US market, and a move to expand its financial market presence." They said during his tenure at NatWest, Wanless made ill-advised forays into investment banking in US markets whilst losing market share. In 1997 a £90 million trading loss was uncovered in NatWest Markets, the bank's investment bank, which many commentators blamed on the investment bank's quality of management. The trader who ran up the £90 million loss had been trading since 2004, which meant that he was overlooked by NatWest's review of its risk control in 2005, but at the time you insisted that things were going well generally. As we know, NatWest was taken over in a hostile takeover by the Royal Bank of Scotland, so I am putting it to you maybe the risk you missed here was the risk that you missed with Northern Rock, and your voice should have been a cautious voice against this aggressive strategy }}

(Veracitycounts (talk) 11:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

Later ............

I now see that, whilst user Chrisieboy undid my edit, yet again, he has reformatted and reinserted the text. I am sorry to have utilised so much of your 'air time' and it really is now time to move on. You will have realised by now, that once 'Veracitycounts' has a rat in his teeth, it doesn't get away !

(Veracitycounts (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

RE:Proposed deletion of Major Examples of Last Stand in History

Will do. Thanks for speedy deleting it, I wasn't too sure myself. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


I have just been browsing WP:ANI. as you kindly suggested. WOW - the pen really is mightier than the sword. There is some serious bigoted thuggery going on behind the Wiki' scenes, of which I (and doubtless many other readers and editors) was oblivious to. I trust that none of these keyboard combatants possess the nuclear option. Given my relatively innocuous spat, whilst carrying Wikipedia 'L' plates, I may change my user name to saintveracitycounts ! Just a rhetorical muse, no reply necessary.

(Veracitycounts (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC))

Glorious Revolution

You made some changes here a while ago to the date recording; I’ve left a note here about it. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added a note to Battle of Reading (1688) to explain the dating; there's another couple of places it should go, but I don't want to start putting it in 'til you've seen it. What do you reckon? Moonraker12 (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

(This, again!) Are you saying it is wrong to put in a footnote about the dating system? MOS#Calendars doesn’t say that; it gives a default position, but also says we should follow reliable sources.
And I wouldn’t go along with un-necessary, either. This is an encyclopaedia, not a textbook for experts; a significant number of readers won’t be aware that there’s a calendar discrepancy for this period, while others will know about the calendar, but won’t be aware of the nuances of WP:MOS#Calendars, and be wondering what dating system we are using. And the reliable sources I’ve seen tend to have a note in them somewhere explaining what calendar they are using; it seems reasonable that we should do the same.
I checked with you as a courtesy, because I didn’t want a row over the wording of the footnote; does this mean we are going to be rowing over whether or not I can even put footnotes in? Moonraker12 (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This calendar business (Sorry for the delay!); perhaps you could explain it to me, Philip, in words that someone who obviously cannot read a simple MOS guideline can understand...
You said you don't think footnotes are necessary, but “as it does no harm you'll leave it be”. Does this mean you are reserving the right to delete any footnotes on dating systems, using MOS#Calendars as the justification? Or does it just mean you aren’t wanting an argument and if I’m bothered to put footnotes in, I can knock myself out? You seem to be saying the former, you see.
And I don’t think all articles with Julian dates need footnoting, but I do think English history articles between 1582 and 1752 will. Nor am I asking anyone else to do it; I just don't want to have to fight for the dubious priviledge of doing it myself. Moonraker12 (talk) 10:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm developing a distinct can’t-be-arsed-ness about this.
There are, as you say, a lot of articles this involves; I was inclined to do some, but if it entails an edit-arguing over it or having you deleting stuff as fast as I put it in, I can think of a lot of other things I’d rather be doing. So that's me done.
Just a point, though; As far as the Battle of Worcester is concerned, you may know which calendar it uses, having worked on it; I certainly don’t, and the only option to find out is to track down one of the sources, which rather defeats the object of an encyclopaedia, don’t you think? And how about the articles on, say, Aldbourne Chase, or Aylesbury, or Adwalton Moor, which don’t have the PBS seal of approval? Do you know which calendar the original editor used? Whether they followed MOS as accurately as you? I don’t know that either. But if I find out, there's probably no point in letting anyone else know...Moonraker12 (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I got your note: Thanks! BTW I’ve made some comments on the OS/NS and Dual Dating talk pages, which you might have some thoughts on... Have a good day! Moonraker12 (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


In looking at User talk:PBS-AWB, I had a thought - why don't you just redirect it over to this page and put a little note at the top of here? Seems more straightforward than relying on users to click over manually. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Richard Keeble

  • Sorry, that was a false alarm. Chris (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Logged on today after a period of r and r from Wiki' to find your message. The suggestion is appreciated, and I thank you for your courtesy in considering my position. To date I have merely dabbled as a tabula rasa, only to find myself with 'L' plates in the fast lane of the motorway ! I think I will study the Highway Code before venturing back, to avoid being affronted by picking up another ticket from Wikipedia. I now feel that 'Veracitycounts' is damaged goods - is it acceptable for me to start afresh with a new user name, which will not be shared ? (Veracitycounts (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC))


Your request seems vacuous. If I had not reverted at 01:57 (my third revert in just over 24 hours by my count), I would revert now. So I have restored, and then done the reversion I would now do; this is the same effect - aside from DCGeist's emendation - as if I had not done the edit of which you complain.

I do not concede that your novel text deserves any privilege, and I doubt it will have consensus; but I have made compromise proposals on the project talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Just had a look at the Glorious Revolution page, nice job.Keith-264 (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

C & P

Monsieur, sorry did not reply earlier, been busy =] Anyway, I was genuinely not aware that DWC had even posted the {{uw-c&pmove }} on my page so as you can imagine I am pretty much veeeeeery confused =S He seems to have an issue with anything I do, right, wrong or even a little mistake [fair do's the c/p is not the latter) so I ignore what he says for fear of being shouted at lol. With regards to Beaufort I'll discuss that with you on the talk page '=) hope that makes sense, all will be sorted Monsieur le Duc (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Um excuse me LPC, but for the record I told you on two occasions (May and July) about C&P and you acknowledged my posts both times so how you can be confused is a mystery! And I certainly don’t appreciate your victim act here to paint me in a poor light. - dwc lr (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, sorry was on holiday hence my late reply! And DWC LR I was not aware of the template you put on my page thank you so give me a break! Anyway, where do you want me?! I do not want to sound dim but tell me what to do and I will do it =] I feel silly Monsieur le Duc (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, PBS. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi PBS, just in case you need to do histmerge or whatever needs to be done I found an old copy and paste move by LouisPhilippeCharles, Prince Eugenio, Count of Villafranca content copied to Eugenio, Count of Villafranca, thanks. - dwc lr (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Richard Grace

Hi Philip,

It is has been proven that Raymond Le Gras/Gros left no issue through his marriage with Basillia.

The following references argue that Raymond left no issue and that in fact the origins of the Grace family come in fact from the Counts of Champagne:

1. The Origin of the Grace Family of Courtstown, County of Kilkenny, and of Their Title to the Tullaroan Estate Richard Langrishe The Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland Fifth Series, Vol. 10, No. 4 (Dec. 31, 1900), pp. 319-324 (article consists of 6 pages) Published by: Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland Stable URL:

2. The Origin of the Grace Family of Courtstown, County Kilkenny. (No 2) Richard Langrishe The Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland Fifth Series, Vol. 32, No. 1, [Fifth Series, Vol. 12] (Mar. 31, 1902), pp. 64-67 (article consists of 6 pages) Published by: Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland Stable URL:

3. The family of Grace; pedigrees and memoirs collected and edited by the Rev. Joseph Wilhelm. London, K. Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1911


Is this enough to revert my reference?

Cheers Michael R Grace —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgracee (talkcontribs) 01:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Odo IV, Count of Troyes

Hi Philip,

Re your comment about showing the relationship between Raymond le Gros and Odo IV, Count of Troyes - there was none.

Again, all those references in my previous post explain the descent from Odo, Count of Troyes, to the Le Gras (Grace) family, Barons of Courtstown, Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgracee (talkcontribs) 01:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The following excerpt comes from The Origin of the Grace Family of Courtstown, County Kilkenny. (No 2) and explains the origins of the Grace family. Quite, as you will read, seperate from the alleged line of Raymond FitzGerald:

"Some time after, King William gave this manor to Odo, Count of Champagne, his brother-in-law, who attended him in the invasion of England, and for his good services, was also rewarded with the territory of Holderness in Yorkshire. Odo also became Count or Earl of Albemarle in Normandy, in right of his wife, Adeliza, whose first husband was Engleram, Count of Ponthieu and Lord of Albemarle. The only child of the latter by Adeliza, also called Adeliza, died unmarried, when her mother became her heir, Engleram Jier father, having been slain in 1053. Odo himself being only a child when his father Stephen, Count of Champagne died, that comte passed to Stephen's younger brother, Theobald, Count of Blois, whose son Stephen, was the father of Stephen, afterwards King of England, by Adela daughter of William the Conqueror. King Stephen was therefore not the head of the family, as stated in the former Paper. This correction is taken from the later pedigree given in Poulson's " History of Holdemess," and -confirmed by that given in " The Complete Peerage," by " G. E. C," the latest authority on the subject. These latter accounts are compiled irom the Charters of the Abbey of St. Martin of Auck, near Albemarle, or Aumale, in Normandy, founded by the Counts of Ponthieu, and further endowed by Odo's son Stephen, and his half-sister Adelidis, or Adeliza. Stephen succeeded his father Odo, who died about 1096; he was styled Earl of Albemarle, and. by some of Holdemess. He married Hawise, daughter of Ralph de Mortimer, and died about 1127, seised of the manor of Sodbury, as well as of his father's other possessions. He was succeeded by his eldest son William, also styled Earl of Albemarle, who was surnamed " Crassus," or "Le Gros," from his great corpulency. He had made a vow to go on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, but growing very fat, had obtained a dispensation from the Pope to release him from the performance of it. He was a great benefactor to Sodbury, and granted to the burghers the like liberties which the burghers of Bristol enjoyed, with licence to every burgher to have common for one heifer in the place still called "the Ridings" in 1779, which they still enjoy. William Marshall, afterwards Earl of Pembroke, was a witness to this charter. It is stated in the "Grace Memoirs" that the original charter was granted to Sodbuiy, by William Fitz Raymond Le Gros before 1190. As the original grantor was William Le Gros, Earl of Albemarle, he could not possibly have called himself Fitz Raymond, which was an interpolation made by Sheffield Grace, to support the fable that Raymond Fitz William (nicknamed Le Gros) was the progenitor of the Grace family of Courtstown. It has already been shown that a son of Raymond and Basilia de Clare - had any such existed - could not have been of age before 1190; furthermore, the original charter to Sodbury must have been granted before the death of William Earl of Albemarle, which took place in 1179. He most probably left Sodbury to his nephew William, who took the name of Crassus. His brother Stephen, who is also called Le Gros by Dugdale, may also have been very fat, and therefore justly so called. He may also have been identical with Stephen Le Gros, who was an Alderman of London about that period - and aldermanic proportions are proverbial." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgracee (talkcontribs) 01:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Philip. There is no hurry on editing this, but it is good to see that you have found other sources that dispute Raymond Le Gros' legacy. I am a descendent of the Grace family, barons of courtstown, and it would be great if raymond for the founder of the family. However we can trace the family back to the Counts of Troyes etc. This would explain why Arles in Ireland is named after Arles in France! Mgracee (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thunderclap plan

You didn't provide any supporting source to you assertion, and revert of my edits. I guess an administrator doesn't need to, sysop authority is sufficient. Your other option could have been to write it better, but you haven't shown that specific requests were made. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 22:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't help yourself, had to add the wikilink.  ;D --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 22:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Library of Alexandria

I'm not certain about the changing of the word Mouseion to Museum here. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 15:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

English Convention (1660)

I have reverted your changes to English Convention (1660) as it should have been clear to you on the talk page Talk:English Convention (1660)#Proposed split July 2010 that there was no consensus not to complete the splits that you had started. If this is unacceptable rather than reverts shall we agree to go to mediation?

With regard to the 1399 section, as I suggested on the talk page Talk:English_Convention_(1660)#Convention_Parliament_of_1399, that article could be recreated from the dab page Convention_Parliament. I personally will not do so because I cannot find any WP:RS to support the contention. --Utinomen (talk) 12:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: WP:RM - as you will recall you did not follow the process you simply made a move on 26 June without discussion --Utinomen (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I have started WP:RfM here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Convention_Parliament_(England)--Utinomen (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

How are the "issues to be mediated" not neutral? I am happy to re-write if I have made a misunderstanding but I base the issues on what is before me

  • You removed the Irish material and then moved the remaing page "to an English specific one", moving it from a general one to one whose stated existence was 'English'. The non-English material, also including the Scottish 1689 convention, thus existed outside by virtue of not being English, "The others were not English Parliaments". Based on the reasons you gave indicates to me an ethnocentric or anglocentric perspective. You did present an alternative argument, that the article was "Parliament specific", an argument which fell down on two grounds, that the Irish convention was as much a Parliament as the English one, and that they were not legally parliaments anyway but conventions so the Scottish convention 1689 is as much a convention as the English convention 1689. I was not initially happy with the changes "I think the WP:Bold edit turning this from a general page to a specific page was unnecessary and ill-thought out. The result seems to be unneccessary exclusion rather than an attempt to achieve clarity." However, upon reflection I realised that having all the conventions sprout from the disambiguation was as acceptable as having them all contained in one page. You resisted the logical continuation - but why? I challenged "What is them being English got anything to do with it?" clearly indicating I now perceived you were blocking on what I understood to be an ethnocentric or anglocentric perspective, to which you have never replied, indicating to me that it was an unjustifiable ethnocentric or anglocentric perspective rather than one based on something inherent within the material. I pointed out there was a "fundamental difference between those [English conventions] of 1660 and 1689".

That is my understanding.Would you rather I add the above into the "issues to be mediated"?--Utinomen (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Issues rewritten --Utinomen (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation of Convention Parliament (England)

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Convention Parliament (England) was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.

Thank you, AGK 14:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

List of Bosnian genocide prosecutions

Somehow I forgot to point to talk page in edit summary, so I will paste it here for your convenience:

You are missing the point here. It is not that this judgment is not important, rather the section on it is written in a sloppy manner. Someone decided here not to read the judgment and to summarize it (like other 30 or something cases here!), but rather thought it is easier to quote entire sections from it (particularly secondary sources within the judgment!). There is no need for that in this particular article - if we did that for other cases here, this article would be 200 pages long since many of them deal with similar issues (see, for example, para. 403-407 of the ICJ judgment!). It is enough to say that the ECHR decided that there is a divergence of interpretation between different courts (what is usually called fragmentation of international law), and then to give citations of the relevant parts of the judgment. That is what I have done - summarized the judgment, said what it had to say, gave the relevant citations, and standardized it with the rest of the article. If someone wants to learn more it can refer to the citations given. If you think that there is a better way to summarize it, please indicate, but it certainly cannot remain like this because it defeats the purpose of this article/list. Regards. --Harac (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Britannica 1911 templates

Hello! I noticed you simplified a bit the 1911 link templates, and I sure think there were probably too many of them. However, may I ask you if it's appropriate to redirect the 1911EB template to {{1911}}? Indeed, this template provided an inline reference to the 1911 Britannica with a link to Wikisource, and I don't find the new target template equivalent to that. Maybe I missed something, but can you please indicate me a way to do what the old template was doing with the "new" one? Maybe the case is the same for {{Wikisource1911Enc Citation}}. Thanks for your answer! Place Clichy (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC) After a few more tries, I noticed that the code of the redirected template was you incorporated in {{1911}}, however I then fail to see how to reasonably explain in the template documentation the differences in result between {{1911|London}} and {{1911|article=London}}:

What do you think? How to secure simultaneously the possibility of an inline wikisource link, the aspect/structure of the template, and the result on pages with incumbent links? Place Clichy (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I noticed the discussion on the talk page, I guess I just have to put my comments there if I have any! The simplification of these multiple template was a necessary task, thank you for attempting it! ;-) Place Clichy (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, the noicon parameter works now. A typical use is at the bottom of the Encyclopedia article in the external links section. See also {{CathEncy}} doc (at the bottom) where I made a similar request and handled the documentation update once it was done. I can do that for this as well. A user can just set the parameter as in noicon=x as if it were a check box. It can be set to any value (except nothing) and it will work. If noicon does not appear in the paramater list, or is not set to a value, the icon appears as usual. An example usage:

Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

PBS-AWB and Catholic Encyclopedia changes

Good work on improving the refs to the Catholic Encyclopedia. Could I suggest that when the Encyclopedia cites another work, you follow the template with "The entry cites:" rather than simply "cites:", which I found a bit confusing the first time I encountered it. I have tried this here for Alexander Baumgartner. In any case, could we have an initial capital letter after the full stop at the end of the template result? Grafen (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Contributor copyright violations

You tracked down all the cut-and-paste moves and the copyvios? You've done all the corrections? Your requests for the perpetrator to assist yielded no assistance? Your request to cease making edits until the past violations were identified and corrected were massively ignored? New moves and attempts to move articles unilaterally are ongoing with no indication of a change in future behavior from that of the past, yes? And now the documentation of expressed concerns and promises of modification of behavior have been removed from the visible talk page? Do I understand correctly that no further action pursuant to the above is to be taken -- or do you expect any follow-up to ensue? I'm just trying to understand how Wikipedia deals with patterns of disruption, so as to know what can reasonably be expected in future from someone who experiences no consequences whatever from past behavior. Thanks for any clarity or guidance you can offer (but no, I will not be surprised if you inform me that, having brought to yet another admin's attention an ongoing problem that needed to be fixed on Wikipedia, I will be treated as the culprit somehow and will be summarily punished or sternly admonished -- that has been the way this works for 3 years now)...FactStraight (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

New DNB WikiProject

Thanks for alerting me to things going on - I have been moving around recently, and not online so much. Good work with the templates.

I have set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography now, which was on my list of things to do. You raised at the Village Pump what to do about the Epitome text. In a sense this is a natural for Wikisource, since it is a proof-reading exercise. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


Why on earth have you placed the references for this article under the heading "notes", and the note under the heading "reference". It makes no sense. Please stop your fiddling. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a very poor reading on your part of the intent of the WP:CITESHORT element of that page. In the case of Adeliza, I'm not using shortened citation, as per your example of Battle of Waterloo. I had two references, which I placed under references - and which is mandated in WP:CITE - (the alternative titles "References" or "Footnotes" may be used rather than "Notes"). And I have a note about the attribution ... i.e. the {{DNB}}. I see no content guideline justification for your edit. And frankly it just looks nonsensical.
While I'm about it, I'm not very keen on your insertion of "Attribution" into various other of the DNB articles I've done, such as John Rennie the Younger. Where does that style come from? --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:PLAGIARISM#Public domain sources doesn't specify exactly what to do about attribution, though it does make some recommendations. I actually like the Attribution as semi-colon heading, down in the external links, and have adopted it as my own style now. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


Hi; thanks for the info; I went ahead and added disambiguation info to each entry since they had the same full names--FeanorStar7 (talk) 09:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

John Lesley

Hello PBS, thanks for the note. The tag is from 31 months ago, so my recollection is vague, and I also don't watch that article. I recall reading up on the term "Black Acts" back then, but didn't follow up on it and just left the tag with a note on the talk page. Your removal of the tag is fine with me, let's let sleeping dogs lie. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


Hi, I just noticed your account. You may want to put the content on the Talk page on the User page; that's where I expected to find the information. Just a suggestion; ignore this if you prefer. -- llywrch (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

torture discussion

Just saw the WP discussion page on Torture with the comments on Sexual Torture, the unsigned comment of 70.270.187 14 Aug. 2009--"This page discusses political torture not torture in the dictionary sense, hence is misleading"--and your comment. Which is why I'm writing you.

I had first checked the WP article on Bondage (sexual) which seems to be an advocacy page, violating Wikipedia norms of neutrality. Is Wikipedia's position that of advocating bondage? The comment that torture is a form of child abuse is accurate. And checking the Internet under Bondage one finds lots of advocacy for BDSM and nothing against it. You said that there used to be more on WP on this aspect of torture but it had been deleted for lack of sourcing. I realize Wikipedia doesn't wish to get involved in such a controversy, but the reason for the lack of sourcing is a concerted cover-up. Is there some way to get around this difficulty so that Wikipedia is not abetting the cover-up?

My comment to Dr. Joe Kiffon his talk page is this--"Bondage [and torture] often begins in early childhood as a form of child abuse. It's also an intergenerational trauma [i.e.--passed down from generation to generation]. When the child grows up they find themselves trapped in the patterning and habituation of relationships based on bondage. They have a choice--to become a perpetrator, remain a victim, avoid all emotionally intimate long-term relations, or to try to reprogram. Many people resign themselves to their "fate" because trying to break the pattern is too painful (distressing and destabilizing) and is far too much work. What is voluntary about that?--Margaret9mary (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for mediation concerning Convention Parliament (England), to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 23:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

War of 1812

Phillip, if I might ask of you a small favor? We seem to have a situation that is getting out of control on the talk pages. I'm specifically asking that you look at it and let me know what you think. I'm not asking you to do anything as much as I want a 2nd opinion and what corrective actions might be looked at.Tirronan (talk) 04:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Military necessity

Most important point of the Roerich Pact as well as UN Convention of 1954 (Second Protocol of 1999) is the legal recognition of the fact that the defense of cultural objects is more important than the defense in its traditional meaning, and the protection of culture has precedence over military necessity. Please reconsider your change of 23 August. Many thanks.--Pierpietro (talk) 08:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Bulleted list item


Whether you agree that it's how they should be used or not, standard usage of the {{orphan}} and {{uncat}} templates is that they go on the article, not on the talk page. You're free to propose a change in how they're used if you wish, but until there's actually been a consensus established for that there's really no point in jumping on individual users for using them the way they're meant to be used. Bearcat (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not just a matter of whether you can locate a talk page discussion which explicitly agrees upon a particular outcome; it's also a matter of actual usage as it exists in visible practice. Go take a look at Category:Orphaned articles, where there are almost 200,000 articles tagged — and note that virtually all of the tags in question are on the articles, not the talk pages. Bots which are programmed to tag orphan articles, such as User:Addbot, are programmed to add the tag to the articles, not the talk pages. AWB is programmed to add the orphan tag to the articles, not the talk pages. And on and so forth — the way something is used constitutes consensus whether there's been a discussion to explicitly codify the usage as policy or not. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


That guy is sure a load... lol thanks.Tirronan (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You might wish to be aware of this sandbox, it concerns me on multiple levels.Tirronan (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Borodino

hey if you get sometime check out this article, interesting because the more I learn the more I find out how many lied about every aspect of the battle.Tirronan (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Question for you, how does one access the email address?Tirronan (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Well it is not showing up but I have optioned my email open.Tirronan (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Roses are red, violets are blue

I left a message for you - on my discussion page. It is friendly, be not anxious.Dave (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


Hi PBS/Archive 12! an article you have contributed to has been selected for the Wikipedia Version 0.8. offline release on DVD and iPhone. If you would like to make any last minute changes or improvements, you are most welcome to do so. Deadline is midnight UTC on Monday, 11 October. See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Worcestershire/Archive 1#Worcestershire articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release for other articles you may wish to update.--Kudpung (talk) 05:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Targeted killing

1. There was indeed a consensus for a new article by the name targeted killing. 2. And in addition, and sufficient of itself, the new article is way too large for inclusion under another, smaller article that it is not even a subset of. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to refer w/a link to the talk page discussion that specifically related to targeted killing on the assassination page, that would of course be fine and helpful. However, this is not a merge. Therefore, we do not merge the talk page. This page deserves its own wikiprojects/wikiproject ratings. And much of the discussion on the assassination page has nothing to do with targeted killing.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I've lost track of the timing of your edits vis-a-vis my comments. So I'll just reiterate what I said before. And add, that your remark with regard to there being no consensus for the article is not only incorrect, your blanking of the article based on that misconception is against policy. Of course there was consensus, as I expect you have read at the assassination talk page which you edited. And of course this is not subject to a good-faith prod or AfD -- given this, your mass deletion of the text is not appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Targeted killing, you may be blocked from editing. As I already indicated to you before, when you deleted the 100K article, and as well its talk page, this is a new article. It deserves its own wikiprojects and wikproject ratings. Kindly do not again delete either the targeted killings page or its talk page. As I said before, if you want to refer w/a link to the talk page discussion that specifically related to targeted killing on the assassination page, that would of course be fine and helpful. Epeefleche (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In addition, please stop edit warring.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop hand nuvola.svg This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Targeted killing, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. As you know, because I have pointed it to you countless times today, there has been a talkpage discussion on this, and a consensus reached. Your unilateral blanking of this page and its talk page is disruptive and constitutes vandalism. Epeefleche (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Targeted killing. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Cirt (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 04:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The "script"

The tool that Epeefleche used for the WP:AIAV report was WP:Twinkle. Twinkle is accessible to all users and (among other functions) adds several items to the menu at the top of certain pages, including one for reporting users to administrators (labeled "arv"). Clicking that will pop up a dialog that is pre-filled with the user name and most recently reverted article name and allows the user to select from a list of reasons and/or type in one of their own. Epeefleche apparently checked the "Vandalism after final (level 4 or 4im) warning given" option and also typed in additional text ("Editor has been..."). Twinkle uses that for post a properly formatted report on the AIAV noticeboard. There is nothing special about the tool. The same thing could be some manually. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 07:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

A question on template:refimprove

I have posted a question on the related template talk page and, as you appear to have been a participant in prior discussions, I wonder if you can find a moment to take a look. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Evesham GAC

Hi Philip, Evesham is now nearing Good Article quality and will shortly be nominated for review. If you have anything to contribute than can improve its scope or quality, please do not hesitate to chip in. Cheers. --Kudpung (talk) 09:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Civil War MPs

Hi Philip Thank you for the appreciation. I was interested to find such an important era relatively under represented so I am working through the "cast list". Some of it is a bit confusing with repeated names and different spellings so it will probably take some time. So there is plenty of scope for discussion. A lot of the article names are inevitably "working" names and at some stage may need to be renamed - ie MPs parenthesised as Long Parliament or for one constituency when they were in several parliaments or constituencies. As for the lists - perhaps not perfect,but I am trying to be consistent with later lists which are based on dates of general elections rather than parliaments. The Long Parliament does give us a bit of a problem here. However, I am a bit concerned about the over use of "nicknames" which are fine for those in the know but uninformative for the general reader. Once the thing is fleshed out a bit more, others may wish to get involved, and I may walk away. Some category fiend will no doubt want to break down the existing 2000 entry category. For the time being, I do really appreciate any ideas and suggestions, but I don't want to get involved in moving deckchairs when there is an enormous hole to plug. Thanks again and regards Motmit (talk) 07:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I think what would be really useful, with your experience in this field, is if you know of any unlinked names on the lists that already have articles with slightly different spellings or with additional identification. Regards Motmit (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Also I am approaching this from the political perspective. I have picked up some of the military activity in the articles I created, but not in depth or with experience to make all the links. You may be able to expand on this. Regards Motmit (talk) 07:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Convention Parliament (England) dispute status

Please see my recent comment at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Convention Parliament (England). Regards, AGK 19:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

French Foreign Legion Green Beret —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Posturing and baiting other editors as an involved admin

Please don’t flit about, posturing and baiting other editors by making a fallacious post like you did did here on my talk page. You cherry picked the very last sentence out of context. For the record, my entire post is at the bottom here. Whereas there is no bright-line rule as to what constitutes a personal attack WP:NPA is clear enough that what I was doing was employing a literary tool to not personally attack the editor, but to point out how the thrust of his argument was absurd. There is a world of difference between attacking an editor personally and pointing out the shortcomings of their arguments. Please learn to see that. Moreover, since you and I have been debating (bickering?) on Talk:Assassination, your weighing in supposed defense of another editor on a related talk page makes you an involved editor and smacks of harassment intended to bait another editor. That is not helpful and you should have known better. Greg L (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Citing the DNB first supplement

We are moving ahead now on Wikisource with the 1901 first DNB supplement (see s:Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement); most of the infrastructure has quickly been put in place (not by me). I was wondering how this fits into the new "Cite DNB" world. On John Charles Bucknill I have put in place an interwiki link, just as a holding measure. {{DNBSupp}} is the attribution template; am I missing the way to do citations? Charles Matthews (talk) 07:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Test of the new template {{Cite DNBSupp}}:  Power, D'Arcy (1901). "Bucknill, John Charles". In Lee, Sidney. Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement​. 1. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 

Hung, drawn and quartered

Good day Philip. My apologies if I have put this in the wrong section.

I was wondering if I could get your opinion on something...I recently made an edit to the 'Hung, drawn and quartered' article, changing 'traitor' to 'alleged traitor'. However, another regular editor of the article has an issue with this change.

I don't like to waste time on fruitless edit wars, I was wondering what your thinking is on this?. I suspect this dispute will only get resolved by third-party intervention. Somewhat more efficient than a slagging match.

No pressure of course, if you don't want to dip your toe in this spiders nest I can quite understand!. Inchiquin (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I prefer to avoid edit wars as much as possible, they are idiotic. Inchiquin (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Farnley Wood Plot

When you've had enough of templates, you might want to look at this. It was something of a mess, and I've given it a copy edit. It is still written from far too local a point of view: the "northern rebellion" of 1663 involved bigger plans, for example for a rendezvous at Nottingham, though little happened. The authorities instituted a crackdown, and brought in others not mentioned, for example Philip Henry. The whole thing is in serious need of putting into proper context. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


Hello! I've noticed that you had experience with User:LouisPhilippeCharles's disruptive habit of moving articles. My pleas for discussion and requesting a move do not reach him. He again moved Margarita Teresa of Spain, Maria Anna of Spain and Joanna of Bourbon without explanation after I had reverted the same moves with an explanation. When he realises that he can't move an article to the title he desires, he adds an unneccessary disambiguation so that he can move it (Talk:Joanna of Bourbon). Can you please explain to him what I fail to explain? Surtsicna (talk) 12:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I'm sorry I have to inform you that LouisPhilippeCharles ignored both of us again and simply moved Joanna of Bourbon to Jeanne de Bourbon, Queen of France[8] after you told not to or to request a move. That is very disrupting. Surtsicna (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Despite the fact that you gave him an explicit warning this month requiring that "you must announce you intent to move a page on the talk page of the article 24 hours before you make the move" here (which he promptly deleted from his talk page so that Wiki editors previously unfamiliar with his history of unilateral moves cannot readily learn of the restrictions imposed on his moves and thus exercise vigilance), in a flagrant attempt to seduce the acquiescence of Surtsicna (who has usually preferred "of" to "de" in referring to French royalty) in his persistent deletion of footnoted, talk page-explained facts, he has returned to making un-notified unilateral moves here and here. FactStraight (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Walter Hungerford

I did not put the illegitimate child on the Anne Dormer page and I took the children from Anne's page, but checked it first with the citations now listed, etc. The only reason I meddled with the page was that I was putting up an ancestry chart on Lady Mary Bentinck's page and noticed that someone had already made a page so I went to look at it. I thought adding the children in a list would be easier for readers, so they don't have to scan the article. I also thought there was no Sir Walter Hungerford page so I started one, but then noticed someone had already made one, just under another name so I then requested that the page I started be deleted. I hope the sources I listed are sufficient. Meg E. McGath (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is that not a reliable source? People use that as a source all over wiki. I have never had a problem with that source before as I check it with other sources, I don't just go with one source. The guy who made that site didn't just make up all those entries or stories, they came from sources he used, sometimes they are listed, sometimes they are not. The site is not like wiki where all of the sudden you are required to put a source after every sentence apparently. Are we not allowed to use links? There are links on wiki all the time to other pages to find the source where people found their information. The link to that book is a full book online. It's not a snippet. It was just a link to the page where it said what I found, which was -- Inquis PM jas pt H By Anne Dormer Sir Walter had four children Edward who died young Susan who married i Michael Earnley 2 J Mervyn and 3 Sir Carew Reynell Lucy who married l Sir John St John and 2 Sir Anthony Hungerford of filackbourton and Jane who married Sir J Karne. Have you never used the Tudor Place for a source or even heard of it until now? I'm not sure why this is a problem all of the sudden. Is this your page or something that you created? This is what the Genealogical History says: Sir Walter Hunger ford Knt of Farley Castle to 1st Ann Basset and 2ndly Anne dan of Sir William Dormer Knt and had issue Edmund d p Susan m 1st to Michael Ernley Esq of Cannings co Wilts 2ndly to John Moring and 3rdly to Sir Crew Reynolds Lucy to 1st to Sir John St John of Lydiard and 2ndly to Sir Anthony Hungerford Jane m to Sir John Came Knt of Ewenny co Glamor gan Also, could you please stop posting this subject on my talk page.. if you want to talk about this, talk about it on the person's page, not mine. Lady Meg (talk) 06:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

re GreatBritain-MP-stub

Yes you are right those two individuals should have a GreatBritain-MP-stbu and not a UK-MP-stub, you would think, being British, I would know te dates of the change over but never can. Waacstats (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Disruption on ‘Targeted killing’

Philip, your long-standing, strenuous opposition to the very existence of the Targeted killing article has been well documented (at the bottom, here). I suggest you think real hard as to whether further disruption (∆ here) over that article will be wise. I don’t think you will like what will come of it. Greg L (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for WP:Disruptive editing. Continuing pattern at Targeted killing and Assassination. Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Cirt (talk) 07:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|And the disruptive edits were? No explanation has been given.}} --PBS (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Artículo bueno.svg

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Per this reply to my unblock offer. -- Cirt (talk) 11:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Request handled by: -- Cirt (talk)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I think this is over you readding the Mergeto and Unbalanced tags to the Targeted killing article despite the ongoing RFC and its consensus; [9] [10]
I saw this block happen (page here watchlisted), saw the unblock request happen, and was more or less simultaneously pinged by Cirt out of band to independently review. I'm not sure I'd have blocked under the circumstances, but PBS, this was disruptive behavior. There's clearly a many-to-one consensus on the talk page for the article there; you continuing to push for a merge and unbalanced tag on the article itself despite that consensus is pretty darn disruptive.
You know better...
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The RFC is ongoing. It is not unreasonable to have banners to advertise the fact. The last time I revted to that banner was at 23:25, 15 October 2010 and when it was reverted I did not revert it again. The banner unbalance was not initially placed on the article by me (I reverted a revert at 22:12, 18 October 2010) It has since been reverted. This alleged disruption notice is placed here on this page at 07:19, 19 October 2010. That is 10 hours after my last to the page Targeted killing and nearly 3 and a half days since my previous edit to Targeted killing. I have not edited Assassination since 23:23, 15 October which is three and an half days ago! So where is the disruptive editing?
I am looking forward to User:Cirt explaining this to me. -- PBS (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
2 editors on Talk:Targeted killing felt that your recent actions were disruptive and dismissive of the RFC. One of them complained here. Cirt agreed and blocked (he's an uninvolved admin). I agree in principle, that you seem to be fighting against a talk page consensus by editing the article in ways the consensus opposes. That is at least borderline disruption.
Yes, there was a delay in responding. That doesn't change the nature of the edits.
When there's a functioning consensus, you need to abide by that or work to change people's minds on talk pages, unless it's a consensus that's somehow against policy or grossly wrong for the encyclopedia. Neither of those seems to apply. You seem to feel that the RFC has to run to its end for there to be a consensus; there's no reason for that. The RFC perhaps should run for its month, though WP:SNOW seems applicable here. But if a consensus emerges this strongly, even if the RFC is still running, you need to take that under advisement as a valid consensus.
I don't know what more Cirt would say other than relinking those diffs; it seems to speak for itself at this point. I understand that you think you're acting reasonably, but you now have 2 involved editors and two uninvolved admins saying "Hey, that's just not right". Please consider that we have a point, and review your own actions here.
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Georgewilliamherbert Why are you watching my talk page? when did you put my page on your watch list? "pinged by Cirt out of band to independently review" What does that mean? Does (s)he do that often? If Cirt is "pinging" you what is your relationship? -- PBS (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with everything stated in the review by admin Georgewilliamherbert, above. -- Cirt (talk) 09:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Why? I don't know precisely why or when; I have 6,608 pages on watchlist, of which about half are user pages (though about half of those are IP addresses, so it's only roughly 1,500 real editors pages). I don't know that there's a practical way to tell when I watchlisted it.
Pinged out of band = google chat in this case. I get emails or google chats from other Wikipedia editors and administrators several times a day typically. Out of band meaning not on-wiki. Sometimes its requests for help or an independent uninvolved review, sometimes it's pointing out something happening in an area they know I was working on before, etc. In this case Cirt asked for a quick review of the situation, but I'd already reviewed your edits and the block when I saw the block issued.
I responded to your unblock in part because you asked for review / unblock and in part because Cirt had pinged me, but I'd already formed this opinion of the situation before Cirt pinged. I didn't see anything worth intervening over by itself; the unblock request + the request for me to review were a reason to post something though.
I suppose Cirt having asked me makes me notionally involved, which is why this is not a rejection of your request and instead just a comment here.
I'm going to turn my computer off and go to bed in a sec; your unblock request remains open and active. Any administrator can respond. I have said my opinion of the situation having reviewed it. My initial independent review was perfectly normal and Cirt's ping was perfectly normal. I think your behavior is a problem at the moment.
You seem to be on the border of an ad-homoniem attack on Cirt and I here for some reason. I don't recall any pre-existing issues between you and I, and I am not aware of any between you and Cirt. If there's prior bad blood please point it out, or any conflicts of interest.
Otherwise, again, I think your editing became problematic, and I urge you to think about it... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Brief response to "what is your relationship" - I know who Cirt's prior Wikipedia accounts are; I don't know them in real life other than by the pseudonym in email and chat. I email and chat regularly (once a week or so) with probably a dozen Wikipedians; Cirt is one of those. When Cirt asks me for an admin review on something in email or chat I indicate that the request happened so that it's clear.
Again - nothing out of the usual for me, or for other admins. We do chat; many on IRC, some on google chat or elsewhere, many via email. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Speaking as an admin I would never ask another admin to review block I had initiated, I would always rely on the taxi rank principle as do English barristers! I find the idea that other administrator might be asking other administrator to review cases that they have initiated concerning, even more so if the request is not placed on the second administrator talk page so that there is transparency in in the exchange.
The second Cirt is an involved editor with me and has been since (s)he made this edit if either the allegation or the opinion had been expressed without the other, then it could be argued that there was no engagement, but juxtaposing the two makes him/her an involved editor because Cirt made him/herself an interested party by linking that RFC to his/her previous action over Targeted killing. I would suggest that the more neutral action than blocking this account would have been to discuss my alleged disruption in ANI if Cirt thought that I had overstepped a line, we could have discussed it there.
Third you wrote "you need to abide by that or work to change people's minds on talk pages, unless it's a consensus that's somehow against policy or grossly wrong for the encyclopedia" I would direct you attention to talk:Targeted killing#First two sentences and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Including book page numbers on in-line citations -- PBS (talk) 10:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I protected that page. I have not been involved with Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs) over content dispute issues. I stayed out of the RFC at Talk:Assassination#RFC:_Should_there_be_a_separate_article_called_Targeted_killing. As an admin that protected the page, it was appropriate to note the user's forum shopping. -- Cirt (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd have to agree, that's not any definition of involved I've heard before. As far as other admins reviewing; the unblock template should attract some more. PBS, could I suggest that you change your unblock request to address the block reason now that an explanation has been given? Shell babelfish 10:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Just an observation: I cannot see just how anyone can reasonably assert that a valid consensus has been reached when there are only 3 editors commenting giving rise to a heated 2:1 vote. It clearly does not fall to be considered WP:SNOW, and should be left to run until a definitive consensus of a larger number of editors is achieved. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
No, Georgewilliamherbert was probably referring to the overwhelming consensus, at Talk:Assassination#RFC:_Should_there_be_a_separate_article_called_Targeted_killing. -- Cirt (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome! :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Extended content
  • This is very interesting because I have suspected Cirt and GWH working in tandem for sometime. Very interesting indeed.  Giacomo  09:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Interesting of Giano to show up here. Very interesting indeed. -- Cirt (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh I openly admit it, I have been watching for evoidence of you and GWH acting together for some time, I have even discussed it with an Arb last week. Have a problem with your actions being scrutenised do you? I suspect "pinging" is just one of your many talents.  Giacomo  09:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Note: Apparently, Giano is attempting to indulge some sort of unrelated issues he has with me [11]. -- Cirt (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Completely true Cirt. Your vindictive and disgraceful behaviour has brought you truly to my attention - now run off to ANI and winge, as you usually do, and while there perhpas a truly independent admin wil review this block - as should have happened earlier.  Giacomo  10:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the big deal is here, Giano. I've been open about this...
Arbcom members (though not sure if any of the current ones... hmm, guess no, on reviewing list) have been on the list of admins I chat with intermittently offline. Some current arbcom members and I email each other at times.
Every time I'm asked off-wiki (or for that matter, on-wiki) to come look at something I try to be clear about stating that I was asked to review. I may have missed listing it on rare occasion but I try and make a point of being open about it. I am not aware that other admins who participate in IRC or other email chat make that effort in general.
If Arbcom have any questions, they have my email address and talk page... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I never comment in collapsed sections. If something is worth saying it is worth saying openly. Come to my talk if you have a problem. 19:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, the problem we now have is that you have poisoned the well, if another administrator reviews this case how do we know if that administrator is not a friend of yours or mine that we have "pinged"? I suggest that you take of the block, so that a third party administrator is not tarred with the same brush, and if you consider my actions to be disruptive we can discuss them at an ANI and see what the consensus is. -- PBS (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

My attention has been drawn to this block, and after careful review, I find myself in disagreement with it. Whether or not reverting the template on the targeted killing was appropriate, I cannot see how it would rise to the level of disruptive and tendentious editing that required blocking this editor without, for example, the user having at first been at least cautioned by an uninvolved administrator. I also note that the disputed edits occurred some time before the block was imposed, and that at the time of the block, this editor was engaged in good-faith, noncontroversial editing in a totally unrelated area. The blocking administrator's initial explanation for the block appears to be, at a minimum, incomplete (although it has been fleshed out some in the subsequent discussion). Finally, although the same standards of conduct apply to all editors, I note that Philip Baird Shearer has edited Wikipedia since 2003 and has no prior blocks, which strengthens my conclusion that discussing before blocking would have been by far the preferable course of action in this case.

Given that I find myself in disagreement here with at least two other administrators, I will not act unilaterally, but ask other uninvolved administrators to weigh in here so that a consensus can be reached. I will note on ANI that this unblock request is pending. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added a note at AN/I about the need to review this block. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
@Philip Baird Shearer, note comment of Newyorkbrad: "My attention has been drawn to this block..." - so by your logic, someone has "poisoned the well" for Newyorkbrad, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 10:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes! Which is why I suggest you take off the block. -- PBS (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Unblock offer per suggestion from Newyorkbrad

Philip Baird Shearer, I have been discussing this with Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs), who noted that at the time of the block you were doing uncontroversial work in an unrelated area. Newyorkbrad has suggested that I offer to unblock you if you agree to stay away from the area (Targeted killing and Assassination) for some period of time, say one week? I would be most willing to unblock if you agree to this. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 10:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(Actually, I had in mind the duration of the original block, but it might create a framework for discussion here, at least.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
That would be agreeable to me, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 10:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
for the sake of harmony, I will agree not to edit either article Targeted killing and Assassination or their talk pages until the RFC ends (which will be more than a week). But Cirt this is conditional on the understanding that that neither you or I will block each others account again, or solicit another to do so with communications that are not logged on the Wikipedia pages. --PBS (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 Done, unblocked, per this comment by Philip Baird Shearer. -- Cirt (talk) 11:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I stumbled upon this dispute via the reliable sources noticeboard. In my opinion, it is not disruptive for an editor to add NPOV or Bias tags to an article unless there has been a discussion on the article talk page that shows clear consensus for removing it. Cla68 (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive644#Philip Baird Shearer - block review -- PBS (talk) 05:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


You are the subject of an ANI, here. I am sorry it has come to this. Greg L (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


I'm just catching up with Template:ODNBweb. It could prove very useful for the DNB project. Could Template:DNBfirst be folded into it? Further, could the field concerned with that (i.e. giving the correct DNB article name used on Wikisource) also be used for a "none" option, so that we could track the cases where the ODNB has an article which has no PD equivalent in the DNB? At present I'm putting Category:Articles requiring a direct DNB link on talk pages where there is need for a Wikisource DNB article to provide a free-content reference. But with some template work, perhaps we could get to the stage where tracking could be by maintenance categories, for all the ODNB links (and try to put those all into the template). Let me know if you are able to do anything about this: it would be worth a thread at WT:WP DNB, certainly. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


User has agreed unequivocally to abide by the conditions you laid down - see last two unblock requests on his talk page. OK to unblock? JohnCD (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles unblocked

LouisPhilippeCharles has (finally) agreed to abide by the restrictions laid down by you, and I have therefore unblocked him. Favonian (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

genocide ethnic cleansing

Uradyn Erden Bulag called the seven expeiditons genocidal, i listed their names, and the actions, respectively genocide and ethnic cleansing in the order of the authors who made the claims. There were several references in that paragraph and Bulag's name was one of themДунгане (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


User:Mono/TB  ock  22:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Anne Dormer

I did not make this page Anne Dormer, Lady Hungerford and I do not believe I did anything wrong. All of those words were up when this page was started by user:Hilaryellis. The only thing I did was change a few dates if you would look at my editing notes and compare it to the original which was created by user:Hilaryellis. I only put sources in for the children from a reliable source which was on October 16th, NOT 17th. The source I added for the children was a book -- not the Tudor page. I was only using that Tudor page as a reference to check with others for the children which I checked with other sources. Are you just telling me this about the page being copyright infringed or are you accusing me of something?
Lady Meg (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

my copyright contributer investigation

This investigation of my contributions- Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Дунгане has been dragging on for a while with absolutely no one looking into it. Its been over a month since i last checked it, and two months since another user was checking. I would like to get it cleared up soon, do you have time to check the articles off if they are copyvio or not? ( i can't do it all myself of course, because they would be a conflict of interest). as you know, i keep links in my references so checking for copyvio would be easy. I would like to clear up the copyvio and rewrite if there is any rather than it being all deleted.Дунгане (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk back

I know what your saying and I understand as it is now ingrained in schools that you cannot do that. The Tudor Place, I must admit is a bad source as a main source as it has many flaws, I agree. In the future I will not use that source as recently I did find a discrepancy in ancestry between that site and the peerage site. I am not on here all the time and I don't edit or make a lot of pages on wiki -- I am quite new actually.. so I'm bound to not know certain things. I hope we can work together in the future as you are good at being a stickler for sources which I love. :) Thanks for explaining the situation to me. Lady Meg (talk) 05:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Henry Herbert, 10th Earl of Pembroke

This article does not really have reliable sources. What I am trying to understand is the illegitimate children, what actually happened to them, for example.. did they get married as people are claiming descent from them. Henry Herbert, 10th Earl of Pembroke -- would you be able to help find better sources as we cannot access the "Pembroke Papers" - there is no link, etc.
Lady Meg (talk) 06:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:No footnotes

I have read your question and think you did a great job with it. I don't want to rush into an answer, and only have a limited time today. I want to give it a lot of thought, so it may be a couple of days before I post a response. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Posted a quick response, is Operation Market Garden the quality of article you usually work on, and that you are seeing people use Template:No footnotes inappropriately on? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


Hi Philip. In order to more accurately interpret Wikipedia policy, it has been suggested that we rename the Malvern, Worcestershire page. Please see the proposal at Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire#Suggested page move where you are welcome to voice your opinion. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Moving Queen Anne (Sorry)

You may have missed it, but I was asked to reconsider my endorsement, and on doing so realised I'd erred. Sorry for any confusion that caused.[12]--Scott Mac 02:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Henry Percy, 5th Earl of Northumberland

This article is completely off. First off the person who did the page used the Tudor Place as a source. In the peerage site by Darryl Lundy the 5th Earl is listed as the 4th Earl. I have noticed this quite frequently with people who use The Tudor Place as a source. That page is off by a number sometimes. Henry Algernon Percy, 5th Earl of Northumberland KG (13 January 1477 – 19 May 1527) - the source Charles Mosley, editor, Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage, 107th edition, 3 volumes states that he is the 4th Earl clearly. Since I'm new to wiki, how does one change this and change the name of the page? The whole article is a mess and therefore that would mean that people would have to redo the numbering or are we not going by new creations, etc.? I think what is happening is that people are not counting the extinct title and just continue on numbering, etc because technically the numbering should start over if the title is re-created which is what happens on the peerage page. (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Ooops, I just posted this without logging in..
Lady Meg (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, PBS. You have new messages at WhiteWriter's talk page.
Message added 10:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Queen Anne

Per your edit here, shouldn't you also change the first entry in Queen Anne (disambiguation) to be 'Anne, Queen of Great Britain'? Otherwise the 'Queen Anne' entry has to go through a redirect, which looks funny on a disambiguation page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, PBS. You have new messages at Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Minor fix needed at Template:No footnotes

Your recent partial revert at Template:No footnotes left a minor problem in need of fixing. Now there is no space between the two sentences. Could you please add a space after the first period and before the sentence that reads, "Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate."? Thanks. AtticusX (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix! AtticusX (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hard to swallow

PBS, I know this is none of my concern/business, or whatever, but I find it hard to swallow to see someone get blocked for trying tirelessly to stop someone's disruptive behaviour. OK, FactStraight violated the 3R rules - oh! la! la! (and the earth is still revolving the sun :) -, but are you following (I know that you are!) the endless battle he has been fighting for months?

Forgive me, but I just had to say it.

Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

PBS, Thank you for taking the time to respond to my note. I understand what you did & why you did it, but that does not keep me from feeling the way I do, and that's why I left the above comment.
Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Merci. --Frania W. (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

My commiserations

You will never get this editor to admit an error, ever. The issues multiple editors are having with her with regard to Peerage articles are the same ones earlier editors had with her BLP edits. She stopped violating BLP policy by switching to dead people; although that alleviated my particular immediate issues with her editing, it has apparently become a headache to other editors. Her most recent edit summary was this gem...So, fair warning and good luck to you! --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ Grossmann 2009, p. 51
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference absolutewar was invoked but never defined (see the help page).