Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:30, 30 December 2005

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

Sir John Harvey

I was not sure what the correct name for John Harvey should be. There was an entry for John Harvey (Colonel) and John Harvey (governor). I think he his notable for both. So I chose Sir John Harvey. You are welcome to change it. --YUL89YYZ 21:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

1812 battle names

The names used on my new 1812 stubs are those used on the List of battles 1801-1900. If they are wrong, feel free to correct them (and move pages if necessary). Roy Al Blue 02:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Forgot to sign

I noticed you left an edit on my talk page telling me to use the Warbox. That will not be a problem, but I did notice that you failed to sign your edit. To sign edits, type four tildes after them. Thanks. Roy Al Blue 13:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Modern Warfare

Like others, I've noticed that in Modern Warfare the introductions are far too brief, and without historical context. When I've tried to rectify this, you have simply deleted what I have written. I know that you have said that this article is on modern warfare, and not WW1 and WW2, but modern history (and therefore modern warfare) does encompass WW1 and WW2. Now, I can understand that you want to provide a stable chronological order (hence separate industrial and modern warfare articles) but you can not separate total war from its historical context, especially since it has only ever happened in WW1 and WW2 - Never after.

Additionally, whilst I somewhat disagreed with the inclusion of 'total war' in the first place, since it is not a type of warfare like say, biological warfare or Naval warfare, I decided it wasn't too much of a problem. However, what is a problem is that your definition is generalised, slightly inaccurate and has the wrong focus. For one, total war has not been practiced for centuries, it is a relatively new development in warfare (and if it had been practiced for centuries, why did you include it in modern warfare?). Secondly, your explanation of it "Total war is a 20th century term to describe a war in which countries or nations use all of their resources to destroy another organized country's or nation's ability to engage in war" is pretty simplistic. One of the most important aims of every war is to destroy your enemy's ability to fight, and so you're not really providing any real extra information there. Finally, your focus on civilian infrastructure, etc. becoming targets does not really provide the whole picture; the real uniqueness of total war comes from the massive mobilisation of the home front, thereby involving nations' societies in a major way, and not just their military forces. Opiniastrous 01:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Why the hell do you keep deleting the stuff I write? I mean, I wrote good stuff on the naval warfare intro (I added things like cruisers, AWDs and sub-surface/surface/air fighting) and I added a lot to the nuclear war intro. (including current tactical and strategic usage and modern-day nuclear threats like dirty-bombs). On total war, I've just deleted it though. Frankly, it didn't really belong in the first place.

Naval Warfare

Much the same complaint here. For one, the intro. is simplistic. It doesn't go into the various zones of naval warfare (sub-surface, surface and air) and some of the bassic details of those, ignores some types of important naval vessels (like the cruiser), and finally, it fails to mention capabilities other than attack capabilities. Even though these are introductions, surely they shouldn't just be paid off and given minimal attention to detail. They should be able to provide the reader with a good introduction to the topic so they know what they are going into before they actually click that link. Sorry to get off on the wrong foot here, but this is what I feel about the aforementioned. Opiniastrous 01:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Education in Canada

Please do not remove comments from talk pages. As for the address format, Canada does go after the postal code. See reply address given by Canada Post.  Flag of Scarborough, ON, Canada  UTSRelativity (Talk)  20:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:CanEd

I noticed that you've been placing these on article pages. They should be going on the talk pages. () Thanks. -- getcrunkjuice 17:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

okay Battlefield 17:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Fisher Park High School

Regarding your statement "Trust Me It Is Closed", that's not good enough. I'm not question the facts, I'm pointing out your lack references/sources, and therefore the lack of demonstrated verifiability. If we regularly accept such unsourced articles, and don't seek sources, then its *very* easy for somebody other than you, to slip something in that's not accurate. By providing a simple link, you allow somebody to verify something quickly, and move on. According to WP:Verifiability "Articles in Misplaced Pages should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable or credible publisher. The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth.". In other words, the mere fact the statement is true, isn't good enough. --Rob 15:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL. I made the assumption that you were going to write more than one single fact (the school's closed), and would need to cite a source. If the only thing you have to say is the school is closed, then the article will need to be deleted. It is patently absurd to create an article with one sentence. Also, you keep missing the point, that I never contested the fact. You don't seem to understand what verifiability means. If this article isn't expanded and sourced, I will, for the first time ever, nominate a school article for deletion. This has to be one of the worst school articles I've ever seen, and I don't know why you thought to make it. --Rob 15:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic people

I don't understand this category. Do you want to include categories for every opinion one can have? If not, what makes this special? --Yooden

I don't think this category belongs on Martin Luther and the Jews. Perhaps on Martin Luther, but not on the former, which is about anti-Semitism proper. - Nunh-huh 23:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I have removed your catagorization of Martin Luther King, Jr. into the anti-semetic people catagory. I think you may have meant to add it to the Martin Luther article. Hansnesse 23:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for nominating the category for deletion. I was mistaken about its purpose; I have withdrawn the nomination now. However, the deletion notice states: "please do not ... remove this notice while the discussion is in progress"; this is why I had reverted your removal. Regards, Mike Rosoft 00:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I signed the post about a minute after posting it. We can all slip up.

I amn't objecting to the likes of Bobby Fisher being included in such a category, but rather to people such as Isaac Feffer or Romauld Spasowski who either opposed or were victims of anti-Semitism. Such people cannot logically be described as anti-Semitic people. So please don't put them in that category. Palmiro | Talk 01:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, sorry if I was a bit narky. Palmiro | Talk 01:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, only the apparent imbecility of this 'dialog' let me look at other pages where the other half of the discussion might take place. You should have pointed that out. --Yooden

Category:Anti-Semitic people

Hi there, I reverted your post on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as there is no evidence for such a claim. He is against the existence of Israel as a state. There are several countries in the world that do not recognize Israel as a country. At least for the case of Ahmadinejad and Iran, it has nothing to do with "Jewish people", as Iran is hosting the biggest Jewish community in the middle east. Even in such a fundamentalist regime in Iran, Jewish community is recognized in Iran and Jewish people are represented in the parliament. Is there a statement by Ahmadinejad which clearly indicates anti-semitism ? (I may be unaware of ...) Thanks.User:MITSO

Bad Cite

• the Citation you have provided says the opposite of your assertion. Can you please cite a reputable source describing the man as an Anti-Semite. I'd be surprised if there was not one. --Irishpunktom\ 15:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic people

Please do not remove the tag. If you disagree with it then pleas go to deletion and vote to keep. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization

Good work on War of 1812 categorization, but keep in mind capitalization standards. In "Category:War of 1812 Forts", forts should not be capitalized, since it's not a proper noun. Same goes with "Category:Naval Battles of the War of 1812", where battles should not be capitalized. You might want to list these as candidates for "speedy rename". --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 02:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)