User talk:Philip Baird Shearer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives |
[edit] Signpost
[edit] No quarter
Thank you for the work you did regarding this topic. I left a response at MILHIST. --Gwguffey (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- One more thing...I did some clean up to No quarter (disambiguation) earlier to get it more in line with MOS:DAB. I removed the entry for the Waxhaw massacre as it does not directly mention the dab subject of "no quarter" currently. You might swing by that article relative to "no quarter"/"Tarleton's Quarter!" should you feel some variant of that entry should be returned to the dab page. A bit of TLC might be all that it needs. Thanks, again, for you assistance with these topics. --Gwguffey (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pocket vs cauldron
Hi Philip. I noticed you changed kassel into pocket. I'm sure you are aware that although "pocket" may be a more common word in English to refer to the surrounded troops, the translation is in this case cauldron, and this is not an unusual word to find in English in reference to the encirclements either. In fact it gives a further way to distinguish between small and large encirclements, i.e. "division was caught in a pocket", and "the Army was in a cauldron". I would rather the full range of English vocabulary be used to describe the actual size of the encirclements, but if these have to be used in titles, then why not a pocket and a cauldron as appropriate?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've added the Soviet/Russian understanding of the pocket in Salients, re-entrants and pockets. Its unfortunate that past military historians in English failed to make greater use of the English language--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] message received, cheers mate :-) (EOM, delete)
Jonathanmills (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] touch rugby
hi i see that you deleted my additions to the touch rugby page such as the official rules, history and information about the teams. i see that your reasoning is because you think the rules relate to rugby league? well they are official touch rules and it would be great if you could tell me why you removed my information added when i think it is appropriate for people who wish to learn about the sport touch rugby. sharnita woodman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skw11 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] reverting Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen articles to old version of User:Grandy Grandy
Hi, two questions relating to the Bosnian mujahideen and the Bosnia section of the Mujahideen article
- both are being continuously reverted back to the version of User:Grandy Grandy. Does my revert limit (recently extended for two weeks) apply to reverts of this version?
- we/I have already gone through a very long and arduous mediation process (which I requested) for both of these articles. They are now being reverted back to the old version on what I believe are spurious grounds. I feel that should there be changes to them it is those who wish to make these changes who should convince the consensus rather than the other way around. Since these types of articles are obviously going to attract quite a few what I would call 'Bosniak nationalists' allowing people to revert back and forth is not really an option. Also, simply protecting the page with their preferred version doesn't seem fair either, given that I believe the onus is on them to justify the changes, rather than the other way around.
I realize this must be taking quite a bit of time from other articles you may be interested in. However, your assistance/attention to these articles is much appreciated and I would be grateful if you could look into the matter, perhaps consulting other administrators as well. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive20#Osli73
[edit] National varieties of English
In a recent edit to a user talk page, you admonished the user for using a different variety of English than what was already in use at the article in question. I think it is important when doing so, to explain the exceptions to what you said, so I added the following to the section:
-
- I would like to add my $0.02.... except if the subject of the article is inherantly more appropriate to a specific variety of English other than what the article was first written in. For example, in an article about Prince William, it would be acceptable to brittishize the article, and in an article about Richard Nixon, it would be acceptable to merkinize it. Also, when adding direct quotes to any article, the variety of English should not be changed from the actual quoted source, regardless of the variety used in the Wikipedia article. Otherwise, for non-nation-specific topics, the first variety of English should be maintained for future edits to the article. No reasonable person would expect you to be familiar with all the nutty little ways another variety of English spells everything, so if you add some text in your variety of English it is usually okay, although subject to correction by others; but in no case should somebody else's previous edits be modified to your preferred variety in an article that is already using a different variety of English. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Effect and affect, please change it back
The word you use has a completely different meaning from the one originally used. The Avalon source you use has a transcription error. See also Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2007_July_27#Partition_of_Germany Please change it back to effect.--Stor stark7 Speak 14:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Protection of Mujahideen
Hi, I have now made a request for mediation on the Mujahideen article (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-28 Mujahideen). However, in the meantime, I think it would be good if the article were protected to avoid continued edit warring over content. I have made a request for this. Would appreciate if you could look into it since you have already protected the Bosnian mujahideen article for the same content disputes/edit warring. CheersOsli73 (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Confused I am
we've had a few discussions as I have ever so slowly revised the french invasion of russia. He wanted me to start pointing out Russian military successes, and you know me well enough that I don't like pointing out anything to anyone that isn't just the fact as they are stated. Sure seem a waste of breath on this subject though. Tirronan (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 'Strategic Offensive Operations'
This is now being discussed on the main MILHIST talk page Operation naming (cont.) if you wish to contribute. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Battles or campaigns...who knows - The Eastern Front: Barbarossa, Stalingrad, Kursk and Berlin (Campaigns of World War II) (The Campaigns of World War II) (Hardcover)
by Duncan Andersen (Author), Stanley Rogers (Author) Zenith Press, 2001 --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Battle of Waterloo Featured Article nomination
Hi there. I've just nominated the Battle of Waterloo article for FA status. You can watch the nomination at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Nominations. I'm hoping that, as one of the most knowledgeable and prolific contributors to the article, you'll be able to help out if there are only minor concerns standing in the way of the final status. Anyway, here's hoping... -Kieran (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sorry, I missed that...
"Dank55 are there any specific parts to my second part that you object to. I am willing to include examples (indeed would encourage their use) of foreign accent..." I missed this question, I'll look at the relevant pages later today. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Dern it, I forgot to tell you that I did that and had no problem with your suggestions; in fact, I really like your addition. (I was sick earlier this week.) I just did a quick copyedit on it; I didn't intend to change any meaning (except for "encyclopedia"), and feel free to revert me if I said something different than what you wanted. By changing "reliable sources" to "dictionaries and encyclopedias", I think I was changing it to be closer to what I understand you want...that is, you don't want people to be able to pick any name with hard-to-understand diacritics just because that's in a source somewhere. I hope I understood correctly. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Historical revisionism (disambiguation)
The Historical revisionism (disambiguation) page is under AfD. Click the "this article's entry" on the tag atop the dab page and you'll be at the discussion. B.Wind (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Portal: Genocide
Hi, I just noticed that you tried to prod Portal: Genocide. Unfortunately, only articles, user pages and user talk pages can be prodded; for a portal, you need to through the procedure at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. (I'd list this there myself, only I'm unsure why exactly this should be deleted, so it will probably be better if you list it). Scog (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Nikola Zigic
The problem is, Philip, that this common name policy applies to where there is variation in name form. By simply taking someone's name and removing diacritics, it does not mean to say that this is how that person's name is in English. If it were considered important to English speakers, the language would by its very nature transcribe the sounds, or ammend pronunciation so as to Anglicise. This is not the case here, the reason that your sources do not use the diacritics is because they opt not to, and would not do so with any subject; therefore the same needs to be done across the entire English Wikipedia where there are diacritics. In cases such as Serbian (pronominal here) where there is a primary non-Latinic based alphabet, the romanised form could be otherwise redundant if not adopted by foreign languages which in turn take a name from its local form. This is the argument I will use as I hope to start a full debate, not just regarding Žigić but all other articles. Evlekis (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Burma/Myanmar protection
- Please see Talk:Burma/Myanmar#Name has been changed and the rationale behind it where an earlier admin action of yours is mentioned. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Revisionism and Negationism
Hi, I replied on the talk page. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 10:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] List of military occupations
Philip, I will wait for an RFC since I have no stomach for comments being directed at me. The books are full of statements about occupations well before 1907, and your splitting of hairs on when exactly the said term entered the English language may belong in the court room, but does not belong in a reference work.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not here to win friends Philip. If I wanted to do that, I'd be at the pub. I'm here pretty much to contribute with whatever little knowledge and understanding I have towards that of others. However, if you do want to be friends with me, please offer logical arguments and good sources, and I assure you that you will find me most genial and gentlemanly.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sartor Resartus
Have you ever read Sartor Resartus? It's among my favorite novels, and I get the vague sense that you might enjoy reading it sometime if you ever get the chance, at least certainly the philosophical bits. -- Kendrick7talk 18:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The citation style is a side show
Hi. I've responded on my talkpage. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re:Nikola Žigić
See by response to both of you on PMAnderson's talk page, to which I refer you. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, well you'll need to complain somewhere else then, 'cause I don't agree with your reasoning and you don't appear to have followed mine. Good luck though and all the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Humourous
Philip, I saw your note at Talk:Sarah777 and, while I agree with the substantive point you make there, I thought I would alert you to the fact that the word is spelled as 'humorous' in all varieties of English. It is a common error to assume that the adjective follows the spelling variation that the noun does, but an error it is nonetheless. See User:Spellmaster for chapter and verse on this if you're interested. Best wishes, --John (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Football (word) mistake
Hey, I figured out thankfully what I did because it was bugging me. I wanted to undo the edit by 85.233.228.63 (Talk) at 23:11, 16 May 2008 but the edit could not be undone. So what I did was click the last button next to his entry to copy and paste the sentence he deleted. Then I simply went to the top of the page and clicked 'edit this page' which caused me to be editing the old version by him and I dumbly didn't notice. So I meant to just add that one sentence in but instead reverted to an old version. I just wanted to point out my mistake, cheers. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Attribution
Philip, while I think that posting the historical tag is wrong for mutliple reasons, I strongly object to the custom tag being used at Wikipedia:Attribution. Historical should only be used for that which was once approved but no longer is pertiennt or no longer represents consensus. A proposal which is not adopted should be marked as "failed" (the new term for "rejected") or marked as an "essay". Typically, I find the latter to be a true definition since it remains an opinion of at least one editor, but the language should be softened to not appear as guidance. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)