Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:38, 3 July 2008

Archives

June 2006 – May 2007  June 2007 – April 2008  April 2008 – April 2009  April 2009 –  DYK & Barnstar

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The King Was In The All-Together

World War Two The Boy Colin Colin4C (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Emperor Hirohito was renowned for running around China in the buff. Not sure the relevance, as could easily say it counts as one of the causes of WWII - complete with Spain, Abyssinia, etc.

Probably, the best way to put it is that 1939 was the year the empire on which the 'sun never set' weighed in, with India, Egypt, Hong Kong, the West Indies, Australia, New Zealand - not forgetting the Falklands ... before that, the war could be characterised as post-colonial and neo-colonial brushfires. After 1939, the UK was at war with nearly everybody (mainly trying to grab bits of the empire).

That's when the Japs went for Vietnam, Burma, Shanghai international city and Hong Kong - to name but a few. From an Asian perspective, you could argue that the war didn't end until the Americans got booted out made a strategic withdrawal from Vietnam, as that was a consequence of handing it back to France.

As to the start of the war, well I always followed A. J. P. Taylor's notion that the first world war never ended and that the second world war was a consequence of the conditions imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles (see The Origins of the Second World War}! Kbthompson (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you see, BTW, that the war here has still not ended. The Luftwaffe tried to blow us up with a 1T Hermann this week ... Kbthompson (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The owner of the article has started giving me nasty notices on my page for my (latest) temerity in putting a sub-heading before Sept 1939, indicating that this is a significant moment in the conflict - as per every global history of the conflict. There is a 'gang of two' active there who are ruthlessly dedicated to making this one of the most misleading articles on the wikipedia: putting forward a fringe theory that 1937 was the start of the conflict as normative and allowing no mention of 1939 as at all significant. Any attempt to change it it greeted with systematic reversion and abuse on ones Talk Page. 10:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I advised another colleague recently, you do need to tone down the sarcasm - they really don't understand it and it clearly rubs them up the wrong way. I read through nearly everything and this is clearly an area in which both parties can't make progress. A brief look round the inter-webby shows that people nowadaze are careful to say the war in Europe started in September 1939 - and I think that's probably the best you can hope for. An introduction showing a timeline of the way in which the various local inconveniences escalated into full scale war is probably the best you can do. Whether local disputes can be counted in the war is really just a matter of opinion. Spanish Civil War - the allies inaction and German intervention is probably worth a mention - as well as Abyssinia.

I think you're caught up in an argument between Sino-centric and Amerio-centric historians/students who essentially regard the war in Europe as inconsequential. I'd proceed with caution, as someone wants to hit you with a big stick. Don't give them an excuse. Since you're clearly discussing the matter, then I don't think the 3rr/edit war threat can be made to stick.

Interesting that this manages to be FA in other languages, but not English. Kbthompson (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

3rr violation

I believe that User:Steve0999 has violated the 3rr rule at Joseph Romm. Can you take a look please? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

First offence, technical violation, 12 hours. If agreement can't be reached between the participants, then it should probably be brought up at WP:RSN. Blogs generally aren't permitted, but when its the guy's personal blog addressing the issue in contention, then it's probably admissible - possibly with a caveat, as to source. Can I remind you, you're on a third edit and not to end up in the same position?

Don't worry, I was watching that carefully! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised that the matter couldn't be sorted out on the talk page. Kbthompson (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The criticism of Joseph Romm was in a blog, and Romm responded in a blog. So, it seems obvious that either both can stay or neither, but you can't keep the criticism and delete the response. That would clearly violate WP:BLP. If you prefer to remove the entire Criticism section, I would not object. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Summer!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Summer 2008! Mifter (talk)







If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Winter not Summer then I wish you a Happy First Day of Winter 2008!

And it's raining ... but a nice thought, anyway ... Kbthompson (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Trial by Jury

Please vote or comment on the FA nomination of Trial by Jury here: Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Trial by Jury. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

A little pushed for time at the moment, but will help when I can. Kbthompson (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Victoria Palace Theatre‎

Hello, KB. Is this edit correct? http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Victoria_Palace_Theatre&diff=221517864&oldid=220661267 Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Corrected. There was an issue under the sometime between 1905 and 1912 licensing acts whereby smoking and drinking were banned in the auditorium of straight theatres. Music halls and variety theatres operated under different legislation - and certainly drink was banned about then - because of the new LCC (1899) flexing its muscles - but smoking was much later. Basically, the issue of the roof at this place is documented as that being the reason for it - so, I wouldn't take too much nonsense. (I remember smoking in the National Theatre, eight years ago, but that was during rehearsals, so probably doesn't count)! The dreaded Mr Sands is in the house. Kbthompson (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, well I don't think it was my tangled prose - the ref says it was for ventilation during the summer months - so, I removed the bit about smoking. The article need rewriting! Its a bit tangled, and there seems to be irrelevant detail included, but relevant stuff missing ... Put it on the list for when I have time. Kbthompson (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Banner clutter

Wow! You have been a busy boy today! All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I got carried away (once it was set up, I just carried on) .... it's raining again - and I'm waiting for a phone call. Bring your umbrella .... Kbthompson (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Banner Clutter/Composers Project

Hi. I see you have done a fine job of removing banner clutter. If you have any spare time I wonder whether you would like to have a look at cluttered Composers Project articles? The category tree is very simple (see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Composers/Categories). Thanks. --Kleinzach 09:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Not so easy - need to access the talk pages - easiest to go "cat:Stub-Class Composers", etc. There's 3,500 in that cat alone! ... And they're all going to need attention, as they're all gonna have WP-bio - some living, so they'll need the BLP flag to bring up the BLP warning .... OK, well we do the impossible - it just takes longer ... Kbthompson (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That's right. If you use Category:Composers articles by quality you can access talk pages. Actually Category:Stub-Class Composers articles has 930 articles. Composers as a whole has just under 4,000 articles. --Kleinzach 14:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you keep an eye on me, and let me know if I'm making errors - just check a few, no need for every one! cheers Kbthompson (talk) 09:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, though it's midnight here and I'll soon be going to bed . . . but I'll look tomorrow. --Kleinzach 14:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Enjoy your rest - 300 up! (that's only 10%) Kbthompson (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking good. I see you are up to G. --Kleinzach 14:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

How's it going? B=class articles now? Great job! --Kleinzach 22:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm done with those now - basically, they've all been done. Let me know if any categories have been missed - as you'd expect most of the FA, GA, etc were already pretty tidy; it was only where the bots had added more to the less visited stubs and starts that corrections were needed. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. However can I ask you whether you've done any automatic assessments while you have been doing this? I've been surprised to find a couple of Class C ratings. For example . This is puzzling as the article is in any case stubbed. --Kleinzach 01:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC) P.S. Here's another one: --Kleinzach 01:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The 'auto' flag doesn't work properly on WPbio, when the banners are collapsed - the request to review the auto-assessment doesn't collapse. In this case, I had to check the original article for content. If I agreed with the assessment, I just removed the auto flag - if I disagreed, I reassessed - but didn't change the article (so there's a good chance some of these may well be advertised as stubs). Some ticked sufficient boxes to go straight to C - rather than a bump to start. Hopefully, you're happy with those assessments. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

My pal is back; maybe you could say hello to him?

No not that one, the anon featured in the many attack ANI's (1, , ) and Fitna articles. He made a posting in an AN/I today with one IP and then another eight attack posts with another (). Might I trouble you to look into this matter? I've filed the RfCU here, but it seems pretty clear I am dealing with the same individual. Wasn't he blocked indef? - Arcayne () 05:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm clearing up work for this week today; off until Monday to see new grand-nephew and nieces; and give support to a shell shocked granny who has quadrupled her brood in the space of a week ... so, not really too much use in a scrap - try not to get yourself blocked in the meantime - even accidently!

My best advice would be to ignore the provocation - as in WP:DENY (although that essay seems a lot shorter than it used to be!). Responding only just encourages them to engage in a wheel war across the complaints boards. You personally look a lot better when you just take it on the chin and concentrate on improving the encyclopaedia. They're obviously not going to go away - and a range block is only really considered in extremis - because it disadvantages completely innocent vandals, I mean contributors ... I can review it Monday - but it'll probably all have blown over by then. Could consider requesting s-protection on affected pages? Kbthompson (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest you don't take Arcayne's word as Gospel? Arcayne fought tooth and nail a half dozen people over the definition of the word "Penultimate". He even claimed that he was an Oxford grad and that the BBC was wrong.75.57.205.135 (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I've said it before to both participants, wikipedia is about creating an encyclopaedia. There are many ways to do that; but it is clear (to me, at least) that it is not constantly pursuing these arguments. Any administrative action is always evidentially based; never on an individual's say-so. Following Arcayne around and making claims when I know Arcayne to have spoken truely on at least two out of those three counts is disruptive on your part. It doesn't help your case that you duck responsibility for your posts by rotating your IPs. Too much of this is about managing your relationships and not enough about writing an encyclopaedia. Kbthompson (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe one can follow an editor that has 17,788 edits since 20 Sep 06. He's simply already everywhere. I merely pointed out that the Editor has a habit of fighting for fighting sake and has lied about his qualifications and elevated himself into a position of Authority on subjects being discussed in the past. To argue that the BBC is wrong, or that the OED has a misprint based upon ones fairytale claim to an Oxford degree should be pointed out, especially when the claims themselves are patently absurd. Simple facts such as the definition of 'Penultimate' or that the EU is not an NGO should never require dozens of editors fighting Arcayne and his false claims of special academic authority. It is bad for the Encyclopedia and it's mission. 75.57.205.135 (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I am going to respond to this, and then stop. AN/I was right - its best to ignore these sorts of folk. I didn't say the OED was wrong. The EU was considered an NGO at one point, but no longer. The BBC is wrong. Often. As is every other news organ relying on live performance and spotty English usage skills. I did attend Oxford. I did graduate from there with the two degrees I have previously noted, and no, I am not about to tell you which college it was. I am not better than anyone else, but you certainly test that theory. I have used the same account for almost three years. You can't even be troubled to use the same account for three hours. Now, I am done talking to you. You can either do something constructive, like edit an article professionally, or you can go away. I am guessing that the results of the RfCU will make that decision for you. - Arcayne () 16:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)