Misplaced Pages

User talk:PBS/Archive 4: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:PBS Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:17, 26 August 2005 editFrancis Schonken (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users68,468 edits →Article ownership← Previous edit Revision as of 08:24, 26 August 2005 edit undoFrancis Schonken (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users68,468 edits →Article ownershipNext edit →
Line 286: Line 286:
:Please also have a look at ], most of all the section about Nationalism: it speaks about US/UK biases - of course UK/NL differences follow the same rule, ''regardless'' of the number of UK and NL users of wikipedia in the past, now, and in the future. That same guideline talks about "writing from your local perspective on non-local pages": WoO is a "non-local" page, while it implies a lot of "Holland" too. Generally the anti-POV guideline comes down to: when there is a considerable group (i.e. larger than a marginal minority) that could perceive the WoO -> WoE-III redirect some sort of ''POV'', then a more NPOV solution should be preferred, if available. And it is available. And there's no vote needed to effectuate that more NPOV solution. And if a single person tries every trick in the box to avoid getting that more NPOV solution installed, that's called ''trolling'', if not ''vandalism''. :Please also have a look at ], most of all the section about Nationalism: it speaks about US/UK biases - of course UK/NL differences follow the same rule, ''regardless'' of the number of UK and NL users of wikipedia in the past, now, and in the future. That same guideline talks about "writing from your local perspective on non-local pages": WoO is a "non-local" page, while it implies a lot of "Holland" too. Generally the anti-POV guideline comes down to: when there is a considerable group (i.e. larger than a marginal minority) that could perceive the WoO -> WoE-III redirect some sort of ''POV'', then a more NPOV solution should be preferred, if available. And it is available. And there's no vote needed to effectuate that more NPOV solution. And if a single person tries every trick in the box to avoid getting that more NPOV solution installed, that's called ''trolling'', if not ''vandalism''.
:--] 08:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC) :--] 08:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

::And your calculation skills are ''deplorable'' - 60% treshold is ''not'' reached for moving at the time of writing this, neither at the time you wrote it was. --] 08:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:24, 26 August 2005

Archives

Page four

WP:RM

Thanks for the tips. That was my first WP entry.

--Jwbacin 05:01 28 July 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for the ammendments I was getting a little confused, even having read the guidelines. Will make sure I keep the entries correct.

Davidkinnen 07:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Robert Thompson

I haven't read 'Head for the Hills', unfortunately. Most of my information comes from 'All the Way with JFK', which is an analysis of British policy in the region 1961-3. I wasn't sure what you meant by the extract you posted - that is whether it was just for informational purposes or whether you thought I'd misrepresented British involvement in some way. I don't really agree, for example, with Thompson's verdict on the support of the Labour government. Allow me to respond with a quote of my own - Dean Rusk to a British journalist, 1968:

"All we needed was one regiment. The Black Watch would have done. Just one regiment, but you wouldn't. Well, don't expect us to save you again. They can invade Sussex, and we wouldn't do a damned thing about it."

Harold Wilson's refusal to commit British troops to Vietnam was the most significant foreign policy decision of post-war Britain, after decolonisation. But then I would think that because I can't stop thinking about Iraq...

Anyway, ta for the insight.

--Mr impossible 11:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Regions of Chile

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

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

Renaming Eastern Front (World War II)

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

Yogurt

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

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

Gustav II Adolf-vote

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

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

Bombing of Dresden in World War II

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

For your convinience, I repost my answer here: I have read the archives - well, most of them. I have yet to see an article that would have to be gutted this way because it would be POVed otherwise. Wiki evolves, and an old vote may no longer be useful - for example, this lead is completly inadequate for Misplaced Pages 1.0. Also note that Wiki's leads are cited more and more often in media, and again, this fails to be comprehensive. I am not insisting on using my older version (this is why I created the above section), I am not reverting your revert, but I do insinst that we work out a compromise and improve thsi article. Nowhere in Wiki official or semi-official policies is it stated that old version, even supported by a vote, cannot be updated. I appraise you for work and moderation on this page, I can see you put many, many hours into this issue, but as a person with 9 FA, and experience in NPOVing controversial articles to FA status (see Talk:Polish-Soviet War archives, for example) I feel I can help you and other contributors to make this a NPOV FA. Please, let's work together and don't be afraid of change. After all, wiki being wiki, change equals improvement, more often then not :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Glad to see the talk. Unfortunately, my article is a 'popular magazine' one with no sources (btw it uses the wrong large death estimates), so I admit we may have to drop most of its info if we cannot verify them. I am glad to see your knowledge of this event is much more extensive then mine - I can leave most of the work to you. As long as you will put the useful date in yourself (population and such) I won't have to do any edits myself :> However, it being Polish makes it no less useful - it is a sourcem and the article uses at least one German-language source as well (Luftkriegslegenden in Dresden von Helmut Schnatz). Additional note: you should make larger leads, as per Misplaced Pages:Lead. I base this not on my preference, but due to tiny leads both of those (great otherwise) articles would fail FAC process. I will reply to other points in Dresden talk. A final note: all info which we cannot source (and you removed from the article) - I'd appreciate if you could add it to Talk for later verification, instead of losing it in the edit history, ok? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


Waterloo painting

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

Würzburg radar

Hi Philip,

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

GA page move

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/List of tyrants

I don't like having the List of Tyrants article but you have point. The information is better in one POV article than 2. I couldn't give it a keep vote but felt I needed to chang by vote to neutral. Falphin 18:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just don't see the point of just moving the disputed names to a separate section. Unless we're allowed to call all of these people dictators or tyrants on their own pages, then this section is unacceptable, and that leaves us a list that only has two, or three, names. RickK 20:35, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous move

Ash Sharqiyah Province -> Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia

there was no consensus about it. additional the Talk page was not moved. I do not know whom to ask maybe you can help. Maybe you can tell me where I would regularly have to go with such an issue. WP;RM ? Or is this to long? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Armed Force

I notice you voted to move the Armed Forces; where has it been moved to? (Relates to Cominterns' objective, ""by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the State."

World War II US Forces

I want to have articles for all of the major US Army commands in World War II, just as you have them for the British. They were:

  1. USAFBI United States Army Forces in the British Isles
  2. USAFFE United States Army Forces in the Far East
  3. USAFIA United States Army Forces in Australia
  4. USAFICA United States Army Forces in Central Africa
  5. USAFIME United States Army Forces in the Middle East (But it is at U.S. Army Forces in the Middle East, and we might want to move it.
  6. USAFISPA United States Army Forces in the South Pacific Area

Any suggestions on development would be appreciated.

Also, I was wondering if you could take a look at Misplaced Pages:Requested_moves#June_17.2C_2005. I've listed United States Army Air Force for a move to United States Army Air Forces, the correct term. We didn't have a separate Air Force until 1947, unlike you forward-thinking Brits, and it was decided to use a collective plural since each separate air command was called an "air force."

When I nominated the article for a move about a month ago, two people not-in-the-know decided that since the historically correct term doesn't follow Misplaced Pages naming conventions, we should persist in misnaming it. Very bad form: It's unscholarly, and more important to me, insulting to American war dead. Imagine calling the Royal Welch Fusiliers the "Royal Welsh Fusiliers." Sure, people would know what you mean, but that's not what they called themselves, it's not how the titled their regimental rolls and marked their monuments etc. The same thing applies here, so please go and vote for "United States Army Air Forces."

Thanks & Regards, --Jpbrenna 20:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for my error regarding WP:RM. Thanks for reminding me. Superm401 | Talk 01:01, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Before I Vote on 'Move Tsushima Islands' Issue

  • I would appreciate a rational explaination (after you read my Comments in the subject dispute Talk:Tsushima Islands), of the arguement or arguments you consider vital and germane to the discusion and vote. Frankly, MOST all of you are being silly over nothing of particular importance, since both names can be redirected into the one used. I have left a comment concerning my contribution to the article, which contribution — seems to have triggered the current edit and revision wars. For that I apologize, but see the Comments on the vote. I am also taking the liberty of putting the vote section AFTER the Comments about same.
  • Still, I have just spent over four hours of valuable spare time, and would welcome your thoughts after you read and understand the distinction I put forth between a governments termonology as a governing body and a geographical reference like an archepelego, which it certainly is.
  • More to the point, I'd like to see your defense regarding your favorite POV of what I had to say viz a viz the mergest attitude of the senior editors and administrators that frequent the Misplaced Pages:VfD discussions. To my recollection, I don't recollect any of you hotheads in this dispute ever spending anytime thereon, possibly excepting Mel Etitis, but rarely even then.
  • In any event, I'm neutral here, and have asked that the article be kept EDIT FREE for the next three days by placing The Inuse template into it — I'd copyedited over two and half hours before I suspended that effort the other night because this shameful fued was going on — proper English grammer does depend, unfortunately, on whether one uses the plural or the singular. I saved that on my hard drive, but I don't need to wade through yet another 70 edits to finish the job. As it is, this matter will probably double the time it takes for such a simple job.
  • If you are local to Japan, some history of the canals or Sea-channel is certainly germane to the ongoing discussion, moreover, any cogent arguement you condsider being particularly telling needs to be clearly repeated in the current on going comments if you want them counted on in the vote.
  • I will make sure this message goes to each contributor to the article the past month, so you are not being singled out. Now is the time to take a deep breath, for rational concise summaries, not all the arguing that is so wearisome in 66 printed pages - half a novelette, I'd guess! It's certainly a lot to ask your fellow editors to wade through on a minor issue.
  • I will also personally be making sure that at least a dozen other Administrators I'm acquainted with take a look at the debate after the time below. I will in fact ask for twenty commitments, so be clear and respectful of our time!!!
  • Thankyou for your time, attention, and good professional behaviour. I'll check the Talk state again no sooner than Monday around Noon (UTC), And ask the uninvolved others to do the same. PLEASE BE CONCISE. ] 23:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi How ya doing! -- fab

BDWWII

That was on the article. I was bringing to attn. SV|t 20:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Marie Antoinette

hi there, read your comment. and i know what the guidelines say. but that still doesn´t solve the problem, does it? Antares911 19:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) i´ve posted a discussion on this current mess, feel free to join in, maybe we can sort this out?

Requested moves

Thanks for letting me know. I don't think it says so on the page itself. Grace Note 02:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:36, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

wrong reverts

why do you revert corrections of language mistakes? do you really think there are such words as "Belorussian" or "Byelorussia" or some other in English and these should be used? Did you try to check Google or any "official" encyclopedia about these? --Monkbel 16:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate Article

Looks like someone else also wrote an entry on the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Notifying both authors. Ethiopia-Eritrea War

lots of issues | leave me a message 04:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gdansk -> Gdańsk_Gdańsk-Page_four">

What was wrong with my move? The new version of wiki supports diacritics, so it should be Gdańsk, not Gdansk. 

The title given to this article lacks diacritics because of certain past technical limitations,
and the article has not been renamed yet. The title with diacritics is: Gdańsk.

There are no more technical limitations, so? --Akumiszcza 28 June 2005 08:42 (UTC)

Please see Help:Renaming (moving) a page. Pages should be moved with the move button not with a cut and past. Philip Baird Shearer 28 June 2005 08:51 (UTC).

Ok, thanks and sorry. But now it takes an administrator to do it. --Akumiszcza 28 June 2005 09:05 (UTC)

Gdansk WP:RM

I have move the page back to Gdansk. I think you should wait for a consensus as specified by WP:RM before moving the page. The Gdańsk spelling is not used in English. Please fix the double redirect on Danzig which you have changed and I can not undo because it is protected. Philip Baird Shearer 28 June 2005 15:22 (UTC)

Done. I only moved the page because it was in Category:Articles lacking diacritics. I didn't know it was listed at WP:RM. dbenbenn | talk 28 June 2005 15:46 (UTC)

Missing movement

What do they call it in Her Majesty's service? --Jpbrenna 29 June 2005 23:33 (UTC)

Mailing list

The mailing list(s) are located here. Alphax  3 July 2005 07:36 (UTC)

Heads Up on Tsushimas

  • Just a friendly heads up— through some magic I don't understand the Talk:Tsushima Islands is up for a Final Vote. Get there soon, and pop into Talk:Tsushima Strait as well.
  • Looking over your user page, seems like I should get to know you — History/Miltary history is the horse I rode into Wiki on! I'll be doing some upgrades on the Russo-Japanese War soon as I get some graphics skills upgraded. I've a lot of reserch in place. later! FrankB 7 July 2005 00:43 (UTC)
  • Please take a quick peek at Concern and act accordingly! Thanks FrankB 8 July 2005 19:56 (UTC)

Western Front, Battlebox & the Scheldt

Perhaps it is because I'm very tired, but I'm not quite sure I understand what you meant with the campaign box on The Battle of the Scheldt. I look and looked for a campaign or some category to put it under, and found there was no listing of all the battles on the western front. That is why I started that box. If you can help me improve or explain to me how to nest it like you've suggested that would be great. On this note, you'll find, as I'm sure you may already have noticed, that there are multiple parallel categories, and list pages related to the war. Perhaps we can build a road map for integrating them all together in a coherent unified standard way. Continue this on my talk? --Oldsoul 14:38, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

State terrorism United Kingdom

Hi there, could you possibly take a look at State terrorism? I'm haing difficulty persuading User: Lapsed Pacifist not to keep adding unsubstantiated claims to the section on the UK. Thanks illWill 11:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Your reversion of Misplaced Pages:requested moves

Heya, why did you revert my changes to Misplaced Pages:Requested moves? Talrias (t | e | c) 17:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I have replied on my talk page. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Alexandra whatsit

Hi, Philip. You seem to be the resident expert on voting. I notice that the proposer of one of the votes on Talk:Alexandra Fyodorovna of Russia has now voted for several newly-introduced alternatives. I moved the article specifically to encourage debate and achieve consensus, so I can hardly complain about that, but it's getting a bit confusing. Is it permissible for someone who has proposed one alternative to go and vote for lots of others? If so, I might consider doing it myself. Deb 17:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

WP:RM

I thought going through the full procedure (talk-page section etc) was unnecessary if the move was uncontroversial and the target's history had nothing but redirects to old names of the source? – Smyth\ 20:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Display problems with my signature

I'm assuming the text in my signature didn't display due to a font problem. It's supposed to be an IPA transliteration of Evice, talk, and contributions. Does it work after installing Gentium? Also, the links work fine for me. --/ɛvɪs/ /tɑːk/ /kɑntɹɪbjuʃ(ə)nz/ 01:18, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Royalist

Royalist, the most disambiguated disambigged-upon-disambigged of all disambig-pages. I started romping thru this, and came upon William Pugh (Welsh author). This looks like a 1911 EB without the usual 1911 attributation, but I might be wrong (it's the style, the tone). Since I have so many windows open, and since getting into the 1911 EB requires lots and lots of open-window balancing, to check it, I have to cease romping. First loyalty is to EB 1911; this has to be checked. So I've watchlisted this page. Did you do this special page? You've certainly been there. If you did not do it, I would like to send a message to the author.--FourthAve 00:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

User Pmanderson, or User //again too many windows opened/closed// may have been the author. Wallowing thru one's internet history is difficult when many windows are open and you remember some of them. Appreciate your response on Pugh; this is technically a copyvio, but then NewAdvent is not prepared to sue as poor a corporate entity as Wiki-dom (or more exquisitely, NewAdvent is not prepared to spend the money defending its copyright).

Talk:Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse

As you can see, we are still somewhat stalemated. As an impartial observer, have you any suggestions for resolving the problem? Deb 22:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Would you like to be an administrator?

I've noticed your name on Rick's list, and have seen you do much good work around the wiki, particularly with helping others. As such I think you would make a fine administrator. If you are interested, let me know on my talk page and I will nominate you. Thryduulf 12:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Executions

I think the fact that the list does not include the like of Anne Boleyn, Walter Raleigh, Thomas Cromwell and Thomas More means that Charles II looks out of place amongst the famous criminals and falsly accused, don't you think? Jooler 20:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC) - Also the article is generally concerned with those executed for geniune criminal offences and not for political expediency. There should be another list for beheadings. Jooler 20:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFA

You may have been asked this before, so please excuse me if it is unwelcome, but would you like to be nominated as an admin? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Approval voting

Hi Philip,

Could you have a look at the footnote I added to the "Requested moves" page regarding correct procedure w.r.t. "approval voting".

Since I suppose that you are one of those taking initiative in the vote on Talk:William_of_Orange, I'd like to ask you to take care of that vote, so that it doesn't get biased over "unavailable options".

Thanks!

--Francis Schonken 16:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Duff Cooper

Hello there. I noticed your vote on Talk:Duff Cooper, 1st Viscount Norwich, and I was hoping you could further explain it. The policy on naming conventions specifically allows for the exception I and others are proposing:

EXCEPTIONS: When individuals received hereditary peerages after retiring from the post of Prime Minister (unless they are better known for their later career under an additional/alternative title), or for any other reason are known exclusively by their personal names, do not include the peerage dignity. Examples: Anthony Eden (not "Anthony Eden, 1st Earl of Avon"), Bertrand Russell (not "Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell") (but Henry Addington, 1st Viscount Sidmouth not "Henry Addington").

Given that Duff Cooper is almost exclusively referred to without his peerage, it seems to me and others that this exception applies. Best, Mackensen (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

WoO

Hi Philip,

I'm considering to change the content of the William of Orange page to the following, which I'm sure you won't object to, while it will only attract more people to give their view on the talk page:

{{NPOV}}

This is the simplified version of the William of Orange disambiguation page, mentioning only the two most frequent choices when referring to William of Orange:

See William of Orange (disambiguation) for all other persons named William of Orange.

{{disambig}}

What d'you think? --Francis Schonken 13:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the 2 options as expresses in the WP:RM vote are better. Another page just leads to confusion. Philip Baird Shearer 13:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


WP:RM only mentions one option, I give you the full quote from that page:
It's you who made two options out of it when moving, so no, I don't understand what actually you mean with: "I think the 2 options as expresses in the WP:RM vote are better. Another page just leads to confusion." Or do you want to say, that we go back to two options in the sense of "move" and "nomove" (without specifying additional actions coupled to the "nomove"), and stop the present vote at talk:William of Orange? I'm a bit confused with what you actually intended with your note on my talk page?
Also, I don't see in it a reply to my quesion above? I'd appreciate a reply to that question too!
--Francis Schonken 14:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that a "simplified version of the William of Orange disambiguation page" is desirable or necessary. The debate is simply should the page "William of Orange" be a page which points to William III of England with a line at the top of that page:For other men named William of Orange, see William of Orange (disambiguation) to cover those instances where links to the William of Orange page should go to another. Or whether an reference to William of Orange should go directly to the disambiguation. I think the former due to common English language usage, others think diffrently. But this is debated at length on the William of Orange talk page. Philip Baird Shearer 15:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

No, while you imply with the "directly" that a redirect page is excluded for WoO to WoO disambig. And there's no reason whatsoever to exclude that option from the start, which is a POV you try to push any way think fit (e.g. by an extended revert war over several days on the "William of Orange" page). --Francis Schonken 16:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:William of Orange for my reply. Please do not post any more here. Philip Baird Shearer 16:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Article ownership

Dear Philip,

You used the expression:

As the primary author of the original like I reserve the right to say what it is.

I try this as gentle as I can, that is: on your talk page and not on WP:VIP or WP:AIV or any other page that attracts too much attention to this negative behaviour.

The basic thing I wanted to say here now, is that one of the most "basic" rules of wikipedia is that there is no such thing as "word ownership". It is part of the NPOV policy, and you can find it in Misplaced Pages:NPOV tutorial#Word ownership

I think there'll be a lot less problems once you get that clue to the people working together in wikipedia.

--Francis Schonken 06:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Philip,
This is not anything near to a discussion about the way words are spelled, you assumed ownership by saying "I reserve the right to say what it is." talking about the content of a whole page (not even started by you: you moved its content elsewere in order to start the coup on the content of that page). And the "If all else fails" was only caused by you. There are other methods, and I can assure you: they will not be failing (although they might result in you getting less invitations to become a sysop in the future). Presently I still try according to this most basic rule of the whole of wikipedia, "we need to start from the assumption we're all reasonable people"
Please also have a look at Misplaced Pages:Point of view, most of all the section about Nationalism: it speaks about US/UK biases - of course UK/NL differences follow the same rule, regardless of the number of UK and NL users of wikipedia in the past, now, and in the future. That same guideline talks about "writing from your local perspective on non-local pages": WoO is a "non-local" page, while it implies a lot of "Holland" too. Generally the anti-POV guideline comes down to: when there is a considerable group (i.e. larger than a marginal minority) that could perceive the WoO -> WoE-III redirect some sort of POV, then a more NPOV solution should be preferred, if available. And it is available. And there's no vote needed to effectuate that more NPOV solution. And if a single person tries every trick in the box to avoid getting that more NPOV solution installed, that's called trolling, if not vandalism.
--Francis Schonken 08:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
And your calculation skills are deplorable - 60% treshold is not reached for moving at the time of writing this, neither at the time you wrote it was. --Francis Schonken 08:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)