User talk:PBS/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Archives

• User talk:PBS/Archive 1
• User talk:PBS/Archive 2

Private email

Don't worry about it. I agree he's rude for doing so, and I left him a note pointing that out, but I don't think there's any harm done in this case. I also pointed out that the copyright on email, like that on real physical mail, belongs to the sender, and the receiver has no right to republish it - there are a number of famous cases (of which you may know) in which biographers were prevented from publishing the letters of their subjects. so there is precedent from the non-electronic world on this. Noel (talk) 13:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

De Lorean

Thanks for patching in the move template and mentioning it on the talk page—it totally slipped my mind. --Milkmandan 16:38, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

ELINT

Why did you remove the sentence I added to ELINT which relates it to stealth technology? I think it's at least as relevant as the world war 2 example you put in instead. Nvinen 04:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, if it was a mistake, no worries. I wrote a new, similar section with more detail and put it back in anyway. Nvinen 09:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Parochialism

You might want to take a gander at Talk:Battle of Spion Kop. I'm starting to think we should just get rid of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), it's a waste of time. Noel (talk) 18:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"umlout" is very funny, but also somewhat past tactless, and arguably borderline abusive. I know, I know, it's hard not to be angry about being told what proper English is, but... Noel (talk) 04:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO! The fact that it's a typo makes it, if anything, even funnier! I mean, it is such a perfect neologism for members of the non-English spelling crowd - just wonderfully captures that mix of attitude, and then of course the accents. And yes, editing the redirect to prevent a re-swap without an admin is a useful tool - I've been using it for a long time. Noel (talk) 18:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I thought I had developed a thick skin since I began editing Wikipedia, but I must say I felt genuinely hurt after reading some of the above comments. Please understand that there are many variants of English (U.S., Indian, Australian, New Zealand, South African). There are even dictionaries of South African English (Oxford University Press publishes one, as far as I know). I don't think "proper" English should be equated with British English, especially on Wikipedia, do you? Yes, people have different accents, but so what? Mine might sound funny to you and yours might sound funny to me. It doesn't make either of us less entitled to our opinions. Please, play the ball and not the man. Elf-friend 15:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Talk: Requested Moves: Intro, etc.

Philip, I'll be away for most of this week packing up a close friend of mine and moving her across the country. (the nice guy part of me is small, but I assure you it's there somewhere) Is it possible my commentary can wait about a week? I'll be glad to participate, but packing a truck and driving 1300 miles aren't conducive this week to spending time here (and my time tonight is limited). I should be gone tomorrow, and coming back next week either late Sunday night or early Monday morning. —ExplorerCDT 03:47, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Philip— Just to keep you updated...I've returned from my sojourn. Do you still need a commentary? I don't see much happening in terms of discussion, so I just wanted to check with you first. —ExplorerCDT 03:02, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for your really really prompt response. Either tomorrow (Sunday) or Monday morning, I'll have something put together. —ExplorerCDT 03:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My commentary was added (a day late) just a few minutes ago... —ExplorerCDT 00:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Middlesex and UtherSRG

Hi. Please see User talk:UtherSRG regarding the move of Middlesex, England. Jooler 00:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dresden

Philip, why are you controlling the edits to Dresden? It was not a well-written article, for goodness sake. Horrible repetition, bad sentence structure, no narrative flow, poor punctuation, inconsistent spelling. I'm not blaming you for any of this, as I don't know who did most of the writing, but why defend it? Copy-editing may not seem like much, but checking punctuation and sentence structure is in fact incredibly time-consuming. I spent hours on it today, and you just reverted. Please tell me, for example: why do you want the photograph to straddle the intro and the first section? It doesn't matter, but it looks ugly, and yet you revert efforts to correct it. Also, you don't seem to have the dates of the bombing right. I may be wrong, of course, but I believe the first bombers took off at 6 pm on Feb 13. A close relative of mine was one of the pilots in the first raid, and I have his logbook, so I'm pretty sure I'm right about the date, and every source I've checked says the same thing. SlimVirgin 20:42, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, and it does help a little, but not entirely. My understanding is that the British bombing raids took place in two waves over a period of 12-14 hours beginning February 13, 1945 at around 6 pm; then there was further daylight bombing by the Americans on Feb 14, which was intended to hamper German rescue efforts, and more American bombing of the railway on Feb 15. Are you saying I am wrong about these dates? We should make clear in the introduction that the bombing began on Feb 13, not Feb 14. Regarding the first photograph, it wouldn't be at all controversial to move it and it looks much neater at the top. Please allow me to do a copy edit. It really isn't fair for any editor to take ownership of a page, Philip. I will be careful not to do anything radical. SlimVirgin 22:13, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Cooperation on Bombing of Dresden

Philip, both SlimVirgin and I have had some difficulty getting our edits to "stick" to the Bombing of Dresden in World War II article. We're getting the impression that you have taken ownership of the article and intend to prevent all others from making edits without your approval. I hope that this is just a misunderstanding on our part and that you don't really intend to do this.

Please consider this message as step two in the mandated conflict resolution procedure. I'd rather work this out on your talk page than go to all the trouble and mess of creating a public "request for comment". Please offer some avenues of cooperation to SlimVirgin and me; we'd like to work with you, not against you. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:38, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Why the lack of space for the Red Cross in Dresden article?

The Red Cross numbers should be included. They should be listed along with the other disputed people who provide their numbers of deaths in the bombing. Why not include the Red Cross? If they don´t include how they came to their estimation then that´s okay. Thus, making their numbers in dispute. I don´t see why you shouldn´t include their estimation then. It´s a dispute number just like the others.

O, sorry. I didn´t see that you had edited it already.

David Irving

Sorry. I for the longest time couldn´t figure out how to post individually on these talk pages. It should really say "To post comments click on the + sign". Some places, It says "To post comments go to the bottom of the page" but there is nothing on the bottom of the page to post in.

Anyway, I have a problem with the Dresden bombing article. Why the labels if you provide a link right then. Why not say "Anti-Semitic Nazi Propoganda Minister Joseph Goebbels"? It wouldn´t make sense because there is a link right there to another page telling the reader all about Goebbels. And so you give a reader to use pre-conceived notions about people about this David Irving fellow but not about other people listed in the article. It seems odd. User Talk:DM123 02:24, 14 Feb 2005

Reitz/Maritz articles

Thanks for Deneys Reitz and Maritz Rebellion! Both are actually topics I haven't come across (and all my books don't really mention the rebellion...), so it was interesting. Dewet 13:51, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Will have a look at it soon, think I've got some Materials regarding this one. --Renier Maritz 09:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bombing of Tokyo in World War II

Thanks for catching and fixing my mistake with the USAAF/USAF difference. I wasn't thinking at the time. :) Pacobob 04:57, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

You asked about my edits. My main concern was to make it grammatical. I did include the link to an external page (Army Air Forces in World War II), which confirmed some of the things in the article. Actually, I wanted to edit the 2nd to last paragrah, the one that taks about the war crimes aspect of this. The structure of that parapgraph is really bad. It is a very scatter-shot paragraph and should be re-written, but it defeated me at the time. I did not want to step on anyone's toes. There are really good sources, on the web, about the "total war" aspect of this. There is information from the trials of the submariners that could be cited or put into another article and cited that way. Just fyi. I do not have strong feelings about the edits. Do what you will. I was just trying to fix the structure of some of the language. RayKiddy 16:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Military Collaboration of the Week

Hello Philip.

We've recently started up a Military Collaboration of the week. If you'd like to contribute, you're more then welcome. Oberiko 13:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fact versus argument

Philip, are you really unable to see the difference between a fact and an argument? You equated the truth value of the proposition "the Thames flows through London" with the truth value of the following:

This implies that those allied commanders who ordered the action and the airmen who carried it out should have been tried as war criminals. As no Axis personnel were tried at the post-war Nuremberg Trials for participating in the decisions on, or execution of, assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory, there is no legal precedent available to indicate that these actions constituted a war crime.

Please tell me: do you really mean it when you say you see no difference? Please help me out with this, as I am utterly bewildered. SlimVirgin 22:44, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

What have you done with the Talk page? You seem to have redirected it to archive 7. SlimVirgin 23:11, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that life is too short, but I'm asking you not to archive while this is going on. Also, you are losing the page history, and you changed the text. Is it normal to archive so that the page history is moved too? I have never seen it done that way, and you certainly shouldn't be changing the text while you do it. SlimVirgin 23:33, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Philip, I am appealing to you once again to work with us, not against us. I admit to being quite shocked by your behavior over the last week. You have fought every change to Dresden, regardless of whether the change was an improvement or not, even down to reverting the insertion of "blockquote".

I could level the same accusation against you. In an edit war it cuts both ways

You have altered the talk pages, ignored requests for references, reinserted unsourced sections, restored grammatical errors.

The only changes I have made to the Dresden Talk page on the talk pages are three.

• Changed the title from using my name... I will debated points with you but as I said above "Philip's revisions" to "More revisions" is a better name (and I am not the only one to think so. I also changed one of you heading to a sub heading, because you creation of so many heading causes debates to be split into many sections with things repeated. This is time consuming.
• I archived the page.

You're now behaving in the same way with my edits at the MoS.

Again I move a section about the EU under the EU so that anyone reading the debate knew that they were linked. Why did you create a new section and not continue the debate under EU. The last change I made was to move my reply to Zoney before yours because I replied to him first and you inserted you comment between his and mine without indenting it which is the custom. Why did you do that?

I have appealed to you on the Talk page and by e-mail. You ignored my e-mail and passed my name to an editor friend of yours, who posted it on a talk page, and posted it again after I removed it.

I do not know what you are taking about. I did not receive an e-mail from you. I do not know where it is posted (can you tell me so I can see it). I am sure that a log of email are kept on the system somewhere so please ask them for the logs because you must be mistaken.

This is beginning to look like harassment. Ed appears to be serious about moving toward dispute resolution, which will be time-consuming for us all. I asked on Feb 12 to be allowed to redo my copy edit of Dresden that you reverted, and I still haven't been able to advance beyond one section; and I shouldn't have to ask to be "allowed" in the first place. Please allow others to edit that page. I assure you that I am not trying to introduce a POV.

What you were asking for was a short monopoly on changing the page, so that there were no edit clashes while you were doing that. As a reasonable person I desisted until you said you had finished. Since that time the person doing the reverting has been you to changes I have made. Eg the second Churchill quote. To which I have provided three sources.

I am asking only that any controversial or significant passages be clearly sourced, and that no personal opinion be inserted. I will not object to any edit that is relevant and for which a clear citation is given, regardless of the POV. SlimVirgin 02:00, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

But you do, see second Churchill quote as an example. Here are the sources as mentioned on the Bombing of Dresden talk page: Taylor, Longmate, and an additional on line source http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlj/articles/dlj48p1081.htm --PBS 09:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you mean the second Churchill memo, what I've been asking you is the relevance of repeating it. I promise you, I have no objection at all to it being included if it actually shows something, but there was so little difference between the first and what you're calling final memo. What exactly are the differences and what do you feel they show/or what has anyone else said they show? Rather than just giving the author's name, what does the author say, and can you quote him? If a quote could go in the article, I'd have no problem with it, believe me. I'm not POV pushing here; just reference pushing. SlimVirgin 09:16, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Language correctness run amok

Hi, you might want to wander over to WP:RM and vote on "Rastafarianism → Rastafari" - once again, there is a move afoot to do strange things to article titles because some people are offended (on totally unsupportable grounds). Noel (talk) 18:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I looked around, both at academic publications (theses and dissertations) and at Google and it seems that Rastafari is more widely used than Rastafarianism, with Rastafarians as the people. (see Talk:Rastafarianism#Looking_at_the_data). Thanks Guettarda 01:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hague conventions

Because the temporary bombardment treaty was used by the Greco-German arbitration tribunal (1927-1930) that bombardment from the air was to be treated as land bombardment, and because both treaties relevant passages are virtually identical, it is a distinction without a difference. Stirling Newberry

In most sensible military scholarship the position is taken that Dresden was not, per se, a war crime, but that a continuation of those policies after the extent of damage became known might well have been. Of course, we won't know, since not long there afterwards, the plug was pulled on such attacks, the directive coming from the very top.

My advice on international law is check and double check every assertion, international law, unlike the law of a particular jurisdiction or standing body, is loaded with custom, precedent based on implementation, and recognition of the facts on the ground. It is also prone to convenient interpretation, both by belligerents and those who are judging their actions ex post facto. 01:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A useful, if somewhat out of date book for the present changes that have taken place in light of on going changes in light of Yugoslavia and Rwanda is Charles Rousseau, Le droit des conflits armés Stirling Newberry 02:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WP:RM

20 to 9 on the straw poll as of one minute before the end (at least, since I never figured out UTC). There was a proposal in discussion about transclusion...are we able to try something like that? Chiefly because, if I have to start darting around to talk pages (even if they are linked to from RM), I'm just going to get frustrated and stop contributing to RMs. —ExplorerCDT 17:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've created Wikipedia:Requested moves/temp as an example of how the new style of RM could be organised. The vote is 20 to 9 for changing over to the new system but I'd like for those people that opposed the decision to look at the proposal. If the changeover is implemented the current discussions would be moved to the relevant talk pages (hence there currently being some red links). violet/riga (t) 19:35, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, of interest

Someone started Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Instantnood. May be of interest considering our discussion. —ExplorerCDT 17:44, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The sharing at RfC seems to be over. I have made a response there. Please take a look. I do hope that with everyone's effort Wikipedia will soon be the best encyclopedia ever. :-D — Instantnood 21:11 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)

Levellers

Thanks, yes. I've tidied it up a bit (I hope that you're happy with the results). Incidentally, it was pleasant to be able to pass on a snippet of information that I'd learned from the article to the Pembroke College, Oxford bursar — John Church. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WP:RM

As of Yesterday the format for WP:RM#Notices has changed. So I have reformatted you entry of Golgo 13 (video game). Please check it over and make sure I've done it correctly. As there is no talk page entry yet I'm not sure if you need to add the move template or not. Usually one ought to do so and also add the comment as to why you want to move it or if you think it is controversial then layout a straw poll as suggested at WP:RM#How to format a straw poll. I hope this helps PBS 15:55, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It shouldn't be too controversial. I don't think there's anyone else watching that page, or taking an interest in it at the moment. Rad Racer 16:23, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your straw poll format is too formal and cumbersome. It discourages discussion in favor of voting. While that may be helpful in cut and dry yes/no decisions, for something like Requested moves, other solutions could present themselves. Remember, don't vote on everything. -- Netoholic @ 16:51, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

Well, with that article, I'm not concerned that the straw poll is too formal; it's just that there may or may not be anyone watching, who would vote on it. In cases where there appears to be only one user involved in the article, I think the user should be able to ask if there are any objections to moving the article, and if no one objects after a week, then an admin should be able to move the article. Rad Racer 17:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I copied these comments to Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#What form should the discussion on the talk page take PBS

Category:Requested moves I put move-notes in some pages, but no admin moves. How is it working, or should I wait longer? e.g. Template talk:Argentine provinces already 12 days marked for move thx Tobias Conradi 23:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I (errounously) thought to have read somewhere I can either use RM-page or put the move-template. Seems this was invention of my mind ;-) But why not doing it like that? maybe improve the template and then the rest is done by software. Admins could watch the RM-category. Maybe work with subcategories reffereing to the days when the RM was proposed. - No need to answer this proposal, but if you like it tell maybe others, I think you are more involved in RM. best regards Tobias

Churchill and Dresden

I just ran across this, which might interest you. I though about calling in for the monograph, but I haven't yet - maybe I'll get around to it. Noel (talk) 05:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Diggers (True Levellers)

Philip, I noted that you have been reclassifying the Levellers and Diggers articles, so can I prevail upon you to further classify - Diggers (True Levellers) - since this will then be a correct definition? Lilburne was an Agitator and shunned the term Leveller. His enemies smeared him with that term and so he referred to his own followers as "Levellers so-called". There is a big difference here. Lilburne's genealogy and his ideology went forward into the Jefferson line and ended up in the US Bill of Rights. This is well documented and I am in the process of recording that documentation for Wikipedia. Lilburne stood for individualism and for individual freeborn rights (he was called "Freeborn John".) On the other hand, Winstanley reached into the Book of Acts for Christian communism - hence levellers=communism. The Digger aspect only got tagged on to one faction of Winstanley's True Levellers (the term he used), when a band plonked themselves on public land, claimed it for their own (as a group) and began to dig it up to plant crops, hence the tag of "Diggers" by their enemies. But Winstanley's people were first of all True Levellers by both philosophy and religion and then secondarily, a faction of them became branded as "Diggers" by enemies - because not all of Winstanley's people were digging up the land. However, with all that said and done, a compromise could be reached by amending to the suggested title above: Diggers (True Levellers). Thank you. MPLX/MH 17:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

small Help.......

I created a page called 'The Lady of shallot' whereas it SHOULD be called 'The Lady of Shallot' with a capital S, but i cant move it, it wont let me as it cant tell the difference between the two.

How do I do this?

Lincolnshire Poacher

Sorry to butt in, but I've just noticed this question, and checked the page. The article is in fact under the right capitalisation (the lower-case 'S' version is a redirect page), but it should be double-t. I'm just moving it as we speak. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:50, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Diggers

Text moved to Talk:Diggers (Levellers)#A Declaration by the Diggers of Wellingborough - 1650

On archiving talk pages

Hi, may I make a suggestion? Earlier today, you archived Talk:Unlawful combatant [1], which is always a good idea when such pages get too long. However, if you copy & paste the text into the new archive file rather than move the entire page, then the archive file won't show up in users' watchlists as it does now. See also: Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Viajero 14:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WP:RM comments

Hi, could you please leave my comment there alone? I voted and commented on the Talk: page of the article; I placed the comment on WP:RM to bring attention to the principle at play in what would (to most people) be a backwater. Noel (talk) 13:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Torture by proxy

Thanks for your input on the above, and I have followed your suggestions.

TonyClarke 00:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Camp X-Ray

"It is technically a "concentration camp" (British Boer war meaning)"

Not so--the Boer War concentration camps were for civilians, to keep them from supporting the Boer combatants.

—wwoods 18

08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WP:RM

Hey there. I'd appreciate it if you could do me a favour by looking at Talk:British Columbia Liberal Party at both voting and making a decision. It would be inappropriate for me to make the decision after Spinboy (talk · contribs) has tried to take me to arbitration about the move. There are actually two move discussions: the first one which caused the argument and then a second WP:RM to go back to the (wrong, imo) name.

No problem if you've not got the time. Cheers, violet/riga (t) 14:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Southern Kurdistan

Please reconsider your case regarding move/merge. New material Presented. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ubeda

I'm not as sure about the page move now as I was when I cast my vote. It's really a difficult issue. I had a look at the naming convention talk page... what a mess! But it's quite interesting! My current standpoint is: If an English name exits and is commonly used, it should be used in the title and thoughout the text. Like Zurich. If not, non-Latin scripts should be romanized, but diacritical marks should be kept. Now, in the case of Ubeda, the question is: does an English name exist? I think it does - most English websites about Ubeda use Ubeda. But is it "commonly used"? It is definitely a majority spelling - but on a tiny scale. Ubeda is a small city, unknown to most people - most English native speakers who know the city probably know the spelling Úbeda. I doubt that the same can be said for Zürich. Taking this into consideration, Zürich should be moved to Zurich, but as for Ubeda, both Ubeda and Úbeda are acceptable as page titles. Nobbie 17:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Karl Weidling

If you want it merged and redirected, you can do that yourself, and you don't even need a VfD vote for it. Simply copy/paste the content of Karl (if any) into Helmuth, and replace the text of Karl with "#redirect [[Helmuth Weidling]]". HTH! Radiant_* 12:56, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Zürich

Thanks for letting me know about this. I don't know if I voted the way that you'd expected (or hoped?); I was torn, in fact, because I think that there are good arguments on both sides. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And I thank you, too, for letting me know about the vote. I think that there is a difference between "English name" and "anglicised name" and that "Zurich" is an example of the first, hence my vote to move (back) to "Zurich". -- pne 15:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thx for notifying me Tobias Conradi (Talk) 10:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What did you get me into? Dpbsmith (talk) 18:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) Seriously, a) thanks and b) my own view is that we should use the most common name (not the native name, "correct" name, "official" name, "right" name, "modern" name, etc. etc.). However, I don't really see the harm in making an exception for the special case where the names differ only in diacritical marks, and I do feel that the current policy pages do not resolve this question, and I don't see why there couldn't be a nice clear policy statement one way or the other. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An alternative to spamming talk pages

Actually WP:RM is on my watchlist. A less antisocial alternative to spamming some thirty user talk pages (as you appear to have done), also one that is less likely to get you accused of trying to stack a vote, is to place a notice on the hot topic watchlist. By the way, I will now have to refrain from posting on that discussion now, because there would be a suspicion that you had influenced my decision if I did so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sure you meant well, but it's probably not a great idea to spam people's talk pages. — Matt Crypto 19:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ditto the comment. It's fine to bring something to the attention of one or two people who have a special interest in something, but more than that is generally considered uncool. Noel (talk) 00:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Schlesier

Have you had any trouble with this user? He seems to be on a drive to get en.wikipedia.org to change the way it uses the names of towns from Polish to German, if they were in that part of Germany lost to Poland after WWI&WWII. He looks to be a POV warrior of the very nastiest kind. User:Jesusfreund tells me that some German right-extermists may have moved their activities to the english edition after getting frustrated with the german edition...--- Charles Stewart 12:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Indirectly arising from the above, check out Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Prussian Holocaust --- Charles Stewart 20:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Public Broadcasting Service

Thanks for the note, although I had already spotted the move in my watchlist. I wont be removing my oppose vote from the proposal to move Public Broadcasting Service to PBS because I don't see it as now pointless or redundant - to me it makes it clear that I don't support that move, rather than being ambivilent towards it or supporting it as a second choice if my first choice didn't reach consensus. Thryduulf 21:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RM vote

Hi there! Thanks for pointing that out. Yours, Radiant_* 17:31, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Dokdo/Liancourt Rocks RM

Hello! I just wanted to point out that "Liancourt Rocks" probably isn't the common English name -- it's hardly used outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors. Check out the discussion on Talk:Liancourt Rocks. --Xiaopo ℑ 16:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

effected and affected

I can see how a country may be effected, but in what way are they affected? PBS 01:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we can seek a second opinion? Space Cadet 04:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)