
Hello from Philip(user talk:Philip Baird Shearer). Some usefull links to the Wikipedia:WikiProject areas I am interested in *Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) *Wikipedia:WikiProject History *Wikipedia:WikiProject Military **Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles ***Wikipedia:New articles (Battles) **Wikipedia:WikiProject Wars **List of themed timelines *Wikipedia:WikiProject Timelines -- still squabbeling == Categories == * Wikipedia:Categorization == Templates ==
*Wikipedia:Navigational templates
*Wikipedia:Template messages
== (disambiguation) ==
) at the top of that page.
:#Come back to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion page and copy the following text:
:====PageName -- /PageName====
:
==Archives== * User talk:Philip Baird Shearer/Archive I * User talk:Philip Baird Shearer/Archive 2 * User talk:Philip Baird Shearer/Archive 3 =Page four= == 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. --User: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". User:Tobias Conradi User_talk:Tobias Conradi 03:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC) :problem is solved User:Tobias Conradi User_talk:Tobias Conradi 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. User: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. User: Chris Ducat User Talk: Chris Ducat 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... User: Chris Ducat User Talk: Chris Ducat 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. User:Karmosin User talk:Karmosin 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? :> --User:Piotrus User_talk: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 Wikipedia 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 :) --User:Piotrus User_talk: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 Wikipedia: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? --User:Piotrus User_talk: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.--User: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 Wikipedia at heart! Best regards, -- User: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. User:No Account dear Shearer, by keeping strictly to the archaic -us -phus format, you are allowing the inconsistent (individual)alternative to win. User:62.78.104.96 11:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Wikipedia: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. User:Falphin 18:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) *I've since changed my vote to keep because Isee no reason we can't have List of purported tyrants, while having List of purported cults User:Falphin 03:16, 12 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. User:RickKUser talk: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? User:Tobias Conradi User_talk:Tobias Conradi 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: #USAFBI United States Army Forces in the British Isles #USAFFE United States Army Forces in the Far East #USAFIA United States Army Forces in Australia #USAFICA United States Army Forces in Central Africa #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.
#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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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, --User:Jpbrenna 20:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-----
I apologize for my error regarding WP:RM. Thanks for reminding me. User:Superm401 | User_talk:Superm401 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 Wikipedia: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. User:fabartus__||_User_talk:fabartus">User:Fabartus| User:fabartus || User_talk:fabartus 23:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi How ya doing! -- fab
== BDWWII ==
That was on the article. I was bringing to attn. User:Stevertigo|User_talk:Stevertigo 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? User: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? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29#Royal_consorts_and_monarchs]
== Requested moves ==
Thanks for letting me know. I don't think it says so on the page itself. User: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 User:Rick Block/WP600 not admins? 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. -- user:Rick Block (user talk:Rick Block) 14:36, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Philip_Baird_Shearer:
Philip_Baird_Shearer
Philip_Baird_Shearer
Philip_Baird_Shearer/Archive_2
Philip_Baird_Shearer/Archive_3
Philip_Baird_Shearer/Archive_I
Philip_Baird_Shearer/sandbox
Philip Baird Shearer
Hello from Philip(user talk:Philip Baird Shearer). Some usefull links to the Wikipedia:WikiProject areas I am interested in *Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) *Wikipedia:WikiProject History *Wikipedia:WikiProject Military **Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles ***Wikipedia:New articles (Battles) **Wikipedia:WikiProject Wars **List of themed timelines *Wikipedia:WikiProject Timelines -- still squabbeling == Categories == * Wikipedia:Categorization == Templates ==
Philip Baird Shearer
==Archives== * User talk:Philip Baird Shearer/Archive I * User talk:Philip Baird Shearer/Archive 2 * User talk:Philip Baird Shearer/Archive 3 =Page four= == 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. --User: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". User:Tobias Conradi User_talk:Tobias Conradi 03:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC) :problem is solved User:Tobias Conradi User_talk:Tobias Conradi 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. User: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. User: Chris Ducat User Talk: Chris Ducat 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... User: Chris Ducat User Talk: Chris Ducat 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. User:Karmosin User talk:Karmosin 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? :> --User:Piotrus User_talk: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 Wikipedia 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 :) --User:Piotrus User_talk: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 Wikipedia: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? --User:Piotrus User_talk: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.--User: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 Wikipedia at heart! Best regards, -- User: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. User:No Account dear Shearer, by keeping strictly to the archaic -us -phus format, you are allowing the inconsistent (individual)alternative to win. User:62.78.104.96 11:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Wikipedia: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. User:Falphin 18:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) *I've since changed my vote to keep because Isee no reason we can't have List of purported tyrants, while having List of purported cults User:Falphin 03:16, 12 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. User:RickKUser talk: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? User:Tobias Conradi User_talk:Tobias Conradi 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: #USAFBI United States Army Forces in the British Isles #USAFFE United States Army Forces in the Far East #USAFIA United States Army Forces in Australia #USAFICA United States Army Forces in Central Africa #
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
P
PA | PB | PC | PD | PE | PF | PG | PH | PI | PJ | PK | PL | PM | PN | PO | PR | PS | PT | PU | PW | PX | PY | PZ |Words begining with Philip_Baird_Shearer:
Philip_Baird_Shearer
Philip_Baird_Shearer
Philip_Baird_Shearer/Archive_2
Philip_Baird_Shearer/Archive_3
Philip_Baird_Shearer/Archive_I
Philip_Baird_Shearer/sandbox
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
