User talk:Bastin/Archive 2

This page is an archive of my talk page between 3rd May 2006 and 11th August 2006. If you wish to trawl something up from these discussions, please copy the relevant part and post it in the current talk page. Bastin

Request for Review of Wikipedia Article on Micronation Dominion of British West Florida

Would you mind taking a look at the Dominion_of_British_West_Florida article. I thought I had done a pretty good job of bringing it up to the Wikipedia's standards (using your suggestions) with my last revisions, but user:Centauri quite obviously did not. I do have a lot of 'pride of authorship' in the article as it was before, and am afraid that my bias may actually be showing in the article as I wrote it. Could you do a comparison of the last revision by user:bo and the current edition, and help me figure out how to address his legitimate concerns while still giving a more 'even handed' description of what the micronation claims to be?

THANKS!! Bo 16:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syr or Syre

Hi, you moved the Luxembourgish river Syre to Syr. I'm not completely sure, but I think it should be at Syre (and Roodt-sur-Syr at Roodt-sur-Syre). The Michelin map of Luxembourg has Syre (see for instance http://www.viamichelin.com), and the municipality of Betzdorf (see http://www.betzdorf.lu) has Syre (also for Roodt). Markussep 21:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all sure, either. I initially thought that it was 'Syre', hence why I created the article there. However, I have been told that it's 'Syr' by someone from Luxembourg (whom, admittedly, I know only via the Internet). Having now looked at the links that you've provided, and re-Googled it, I can see that it is likely that it is indeed 'Syre'. Perhaps my Luxembourgish source is confusing it with the Lëtzebuergesch name ('Sir'), is unfamiliar with the spelling, or is simply having me on. I will ask whether he has any proof that the spelling is as he says it is. I should have an answer by tomorrow, or maybe Tuesday. Until then, I suggest that we stick with 'Syr', simply for expediency. Thanks for the heads-up, and your continued interest in a subject on which you have contributed so much. Bastin 22:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"Syr" might be the (old?) German name, see for instance de:Syr, but also de:Liste der Flüsse in Luxemburg. Syr and Syre are both used in German and in French texts, but Syre is more frequent in both languages according to Google (I searched for the combination with Mertert). But let's await your source. Markussep 17:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was quite adamant that 'Syr' is correct, but, having directed him to your links and various Google combinations, he 'conceded' that there's probably more than one version and that he might be on the other side of a dialectic divide. He did point out a couple of site that supported his case ([1], [2]), which ought to use the correct English language spelling (being a UK-based tourist office and the EU presidency site respectively). Having said that, the sheer weight of sites demands that 'Syre' be preferred. I suggest moving it back to 'Syre' and noting 'Syr' as a possible alternative spelling. Bastin 15:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Same for Roodt-sur-Syre, I'll move both and note the alternative spellings. Markussep 16:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the off-chance that there are any residual niggles over this:

You are right in concluding that the correct spelling is Syre.
The alternative spelling of Syr does also exist, which can be ascribed to the linguistic overlap between the formal French and the colloquial Luxembourgish or German.
The French spelling of Luxembourg place names takes official precedence over the (nevertheless acknowledged) Luxembourgish-language spelling (for instance, street signs feature the former in bold script above the latter in italics).
Besides this hierarchical distinction, the Syre spelling is in more widespread use than Syr: a Google.lu search for "syre" gives 54,700 results, compared to 28,900 for "syr".

--Gordon Finn 01:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom

Please stop throwing around terms like "vandalism". You use the word much too freely, particularly given your own record. The point I was making was that you should treat other users with some civility and respect; they may well have made a useful contribution to this site which goes beyond pointless and ill-informed meddling. But I can see from the tone of your reply, that this has again passed you by.

The problem is that your changing "Britain" to "the United Kingdom" is not in any way an "improvement". It alters the meaning of a sentence, which I thought you would realise. It is ironic that someone so obsessively pedantic on the use of these terms should themselves substitute one for another as if they have the same meaning, when they obviously don't. It is also clumsy writing to constantly use three words instead of one, when the meaning is already clear and accurate.

And yes, Britain is correct. It is a real place, and a real term. It does not mean "absolutely nothing", so please don't tell me to stop using it. If you so desperately feel we should always say "Great Britain" and not "Britain", you can always raise this on the manual of style talk page. But "Britain" is perfectly correct, and you can check any reference. It may shock you, but the word is in everyday usage and is accepted by everyone in the world except you. If you really want to argue that it should never be used, you can start by going on to the Battle of Britain page and insisting they change the title to "Battle of Great Britain".

Oddly enough, you don't appear to have noticed that your favourite term "the United Kingdom" is itself "shorthand", which makes your arguments against other terms on the grounds of "accuracy" all the more absurd. JW 19:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what the initial comment is supposed to mean. Maybe it's an insult, but it's definitely not a valid criticism. I made a constructive amendment to an article to which you made a great contribution. Sure, all Wikipedians should be grateful that you did that, but one can't just claim ownership of an article. With the exception of the word 'vandalism', I have been perfectly civil; given your subsequent bad faith, in twice undoing my edit and then throwing accusations in return, perhaps I shouldn't make that exception.

Now, actually onto the kernel of the matter. It's good that you realise that changing 'Britain' to 'United Kingdom' does qualitatively change the meaning of the sentence. If it didn't, I wouldn't do it. I don't change them 'as if they have the same meaning'; I change them because you used one of the terms incorrectly. That is to say, precisely because they have different meanings, and you don't know them.

Since you so carefully ignored what I have already written, I'll reiterate what is painfully obvious to everyone else (even those with whom I have had this discussion at Wikipedia in the past). 'Britain' is shorthand for several different things, all of which have different meanings and are often confused. 'Britain' is not a real place. It is shorthand for several different real places, but 'Britain' itself is not any of them. Hence, if one took the time to look up its Wikipedia article, it would produce a fancy disambiguation that directs one to the terms commonly confused with 'Britain'. At no point in the 'Britain' article does it state that 'Britain' is a country, an island, an archipelago, a province of the Roman Empire, or anything other than a commonly misused term and an historical and etymological oddity.

The fact that its use is accepted it in informal circles is irrelevant, because it is incorrect in all formal, academic, and official circles. Furthermore, Wikipedia is supposed to disambiguate between commonly confused terms, and, as the page at Britain suggests, other Wikipedia users have agreed with my position of clarity, not yours of simplicity. Your comment on 'Battle of Britain' is borne out of either ignorance of history (that the term used by Churchill was 'Battle of Britain', as it ought to remain) or ignorance of the problem (that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia).

Finally, 'United Kingdom' is not shorthand, but an official short version. If you think that it's shorthand, you need to brush up on the Act of Union 1800, which refers to 'Britain' not a single time, 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' just the once, and 'United Kingdom' (without qualification) 24 times. The past 200 years have unambiguously deemed this country to be called the United Kingdom, in formal terms as well as in informal; that's why the Wikipedia article on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland redirects to United Kingdom, whereas Britain produces a disambiguation page, rather than a redirect. If you want to continue to direct users to that disambiguation page for no reason, be prepared for it to be considered vandalism by me and plenty of others beside.

You have demanded the same explanation of me twice. Now, explain in which way 'Britain' is superior. If you can find one, I advise you to go to Talk:United Kingdom and suggest moving the article to Britain. Bastin 23:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Your userpage

I think you should definitely re-read WP:NOT! — G a rykirk | ^talk! 09:50, 10 May 2006 09:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the community consensus is that personal userpages by themselves do no harm, my userpage in particular is not one of the main issues concerning Wikimedia. After all, it's not a blog (and I don't advertise the ones for which I have written), a needy MySpace page (I never publish my real name), or a massive drain on Wikimedia's resources. It is an gathering of eclectic scraps of information, which makes the seven letters that appear after my contributions into a human being, without contravening any of the fundamental tenets of Wikipedia. I may imply that it does with my maniacal laugh at the expense of Mr Wales, but it's hardly sincere, and not worth bothering about. Bastin 10:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:LocationUnitedKingdom.png

Thanks for uploading Image:LocationUnitedKingdom.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record and my sanity (because I'm talking to a bot), it's now sorted. Bastin 10:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hertfordshire

Hi there. I was a bit bored today at work, so I created a Userbox for Hertfordshire based Wikipedians (and I'm still bored so I am messaging the 'Wikipedians in Hertfordshire' group about it). If you want to use it, it is {{user Hertfordshire}}. Legis 12:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador to the Union of Myanmar (Burma)

Mr Mark Canning has been appointed to be Her Majesty's Ambassador to the Union of Myanmar (Burma) in succession to Ms Vicky Bowman who will be transferring to another Diplomatic Service appointment.

above texts can be found at http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029391629 it was made on 16/05/06

and the word 'has been appointed' mean he is already apponinted as an ambassador, so he is the ambassador, there is no two ambassador at the same time .

and offical name for the country is Myanmar, not Burma , you should consider writing it again

Aung win 04:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It states, "Mr Canning will take up his new appointment in July 2006." I don't know whether his credentials have been accepted, nor do I know the terms of acceptance if they have. However, it is common for credentials to be presented many months after the home government appoints the diplomat, and also common for the conditions of acceptance to stipulate a later date on which the title of 'Ambassador' is conferred (for example, while the diplomat is undergoing language training). Therefore, whilst is it correct that there cannot be two ambassadors at once, that press release does not explain who is the ambassador at the moment. That is why I asked for confirmation from a source other than the FCO. If you have seen another source stating that he is now Ambassador Canning, I'll accept the change. Unless I have confirmation that the new ambassador has taken up the title, it is my usual practice to update the list only when he or she takes up office.

Both the British government and the Court of St James's refuse to recognise the junta's name change.Bastin 12:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow...

To start off being perfectly frank, after reading your userpage and the comments here, I admire you enormously. I think you're amazingly intelligent, witty, and have the right ideas about how Wikipedia and the world should be run. That's why I'm here, partly to boost your narcissistic ego, and partly to ask if I might be able to nick a couple of your funnier userboxes. Reason: They're VERY witty, and I believe they have the right idea. Especially the American English, teetotal, grammar Nazi, Python, Carnivore, and evolution ones. I'm not asking to use all of them; just, say, five; with a few modifications. Please? I'm also going to (whether you like it or not) add you to my newly created (in about five minutes in fact) list of Wikipedians I admire. This really isn't going to help that Narcissism, is it? —Vanderdecken∴∫ξ φ 18:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment; I am indeed amazingly intelligent, witty, and have the right ideas about most things. As a reward for feeding my ego, you can copy whatever you want. You can even praise my majesty even more by considering me to be a Wikipedian that you admire, if you're so inclined. Bastin 18:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick! So much for the wikibreak... —Vanderdecken∴∫ξ φ 18:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia

Can I ask why you added Saudi Arabia as competing at the Commonwealth Games in 1966? South Arabia competed (since this was the successor to Aden), but certainly not Saudi Arabia. Petepetepete 17:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Commonwealth Games Federation website gives Saudi Arabia as having competed in the 50m Rifle Prone and the Fullbore Rifle Queens Prize.[3] Obviously, Saudi isn't in the Commonwealth, but I assumed (when I happened upon it, after overcoming my surprise) that it was invited. However, since then I have accepted that, actually, it's almost certainly an error on the part of the CGF's web team; South Arabia certainly did compete, yet aren't listed on the CGF site.Bastin 17:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying it. I have deleted Saudi Arabia from the list of countries taking part. You would think that the CGF would be the authority on these matters wouldn't you? The only non-Commonwealth country that has taken part (and invited to do so) to my knowledge, was the United States of America who were invited to make up the numbers in the 1930 Rowing event. Does the CGF list that on their website? Petepetepete 17:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Britain vs. United Kingdom on the Seven Years' War Page

Hello Bastin8, My name is J Dogg and I am trying to clean up the Seven Years' War article. My issue is that while you are right about the "United Kingdom" being the correct term that should be used, when refering to the Seven Years' War, the correct term to be used is "Great Britain". This is the term used by all of the books I have read on the Seven Years' War. Some of these books include: "History of Europe Since 1500" by Hayes and Coles (Published in 1956, "Empires at War" by William H. Fowler Jr (published in 2005) and "With Wolfe to Quebec" by Oliver Warner (Published in 1972). (William H. Fowler Jr. is a history professor in the United States.)T hese are just a few of the books that I have read concerning the subject and if requested I could provide a full list of my references. J Dogg 15:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)J Dogg[reply]

First thing is that 'Great Britain' is not the correct term for wikilinking in the circumstances. The article at Great Britain (quite correctly) is the island, which is not what is being discussed.

However, whilst it is a valid name for the country at the time, I didn't use the term 'United Kingdom' to refer to the Kingdom of Great Britain; if you will review the edit that I made, you'll see that I changed references of actions during the war from 'Britain' to 'Great Britain' and 'England' to 'Kingdom of Great Britain'. Meanwhile, I used the term 'United Kingdom' to refer to the country that experienced the consequences of the Seven Years' War. When referring to the long-term consequences of the Seven Years' War (which last to this day, particularly with regards to the True North, Strong and Free), it is unacceptable to refer to 'Great Britain'. In those contexts, 'United Kingdom' ought to be used, since the term is the short version of all three British countries since 1707. Bastin 21:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Bastin8,

I am truly sorry. Shortly after I wrote you a letter I went back to the page in discussion. I quickly realized that it was not you that had changed the names to "Britain" and "England" but an un named user with an IP address listed. I am sorry for the confusion. As to the wikilinking, I realize my mistake and if you have not undid the linking I will. You are quite correct about the term "United Kingdom" being used to refer to the long-term consequences of the Seven Years' War. I am confused about with this statement however," ...to the True North, Strong and Free)..." because, being from Canada, I don't understand why you just didn't say Canada instead of saying True North Strong and Free. Although I do agree that Great Britain is not the correct term.

Sorry for the misunderstanding,

J Dogg 21:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)J Dogg[reply]

It's no problem. Really, it's my misunderstanding, too; as you can see from previous comments on my talk page, Neanderthals have complained about my pedantry in this area. Hence, when you made an honest mistake, I answered tersely and impolitely, without thinking that you actually have two brain cells to rub together. I apologise for that.

I referred to the 'True North, Strong and Free' because I prefer a poetic and complimentary turn of phrase when referring to another person's country. Except France; that, I can't do. Canada, though, I have a lot of time for. Bastin 21:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Basitn8

Hey there Bastin8, You seem like a really nice person and I appriciate your reply. I also enjoyed your poetic name for Canada and I am glad to hear that you enjoy my country. Here in Canada we have strong ties to the United Kingdom and the Monarchy. In the news you might have heard that Canadians wanted to part with the Monarchy, but that is only a minority of us. As to your idea about France, I completely agree! Have a great day and happy editing, J Dogg 22:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)J Dogg P.S: I think that you are doing a great service for Wikipedia.[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Battle-poitiers.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Battle-poitiers.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -SCEhard T 12:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On July 5, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article German occupation of Luxembourg in World War I, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

not vandalism

although UK dosent reconized burman as myanmar , its offical name is myanmar , and this wikipedia have nutral point of view and , you shouldnt have take my contribution as vandalism.

use your common sence, Myanmar is Myanmar, Burma is only named after the sound of Myanmar by the british long time ago upon the colonizing of Myanmar, you can read that clearly here at Myanmar

i dont care wheather the british reconized burman as myanmar, and this is on wikipedia and , it should be viewed as netural point of view as it is the offical policy of wikipedia.

and clearly wikipedia is not the offical webpage of british goverment, myanmar shoild be written as myanmar —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aung win (talk • contribs) 21:21, 6 July, 2006 (UTC).

It's not the official webpage of the British government, but the article in question is a list of positions within the British Diplomatic Service. Since 'Ambassador to Myanmar' isn't a diplomatic posting, but 'Ambassador to Burma'(or, more strictly, Ambassador and Minister Plenipotentiary to the Union of Burma) is, it's listed under 'Burma'. See the talk page. If you change it back, despite this second explanation, it can only be considered vandalism. Bastin 21:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

but on the chart , its all the name of the country , they are not listing positions within the British Diplomatic Service on that chart,

On positions within the British Diplomatic Service , i will have to agree the ususage 'Ambassador to Burma' but the country name should be 'Myanmar'

UK football team

I know! But do you think we should spell out in full "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" each time we refer to the Olympics team? What we can't do is treat this formula as being the same as "United Kingdom". The different names these antique teams went under are fairly important as they are implicitly being used as a sort of precedent for the argument that a team should be formed in the future. I'll be happy to let you edit the article towards accuracy on the subject of names, or I may correct your criticism myself. --Guinnog 18:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The names of the past teams are relatively immaterial (although they ought to be pointed out). No-one argues that there ought to be a team including English, Scottish, and Welsh (but not Northern Irish) players, on the grounds because there was a team called 'Great Britain'. What is important is making sure that one implies the correct nature of the team, as a representative of the whole of the United Kingdom, because that does provide a precedent.

Since the teams that played the three friendlies between 1947 and 1965 included Northern Irish players, they did not 'represent Great Britain' in any way, shape, or form. The team was called 'Great Britain', and that is addressed in the relevant section. However, it represented the United Kingdom.

Similarly, the team at the Olympics is called 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland', yet it represents the United Kingdom. Hence, if one can't be bothered to write it in full, one should simply write 'United Kingdom', since that is the only option that is correct on either ground.Bastin 18:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

olympic maps

I had joined britain and ireland for 1896 and 1900, because the games museum lists it as "Great Britain & Ireland" [4], but after that it lists it only as "Great Britain" [5]. I thought the maps should only show the country which was named? --Astrokey44 00:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That page is wrong. The United Kingdom has always taken part as a single country, and only ever used a variation on the country's official name; hence, until 1924 (inclusive), the UK took part under the name 'Great Britain and Ireland', changing only after the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927. See Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the Summer Olympics and Ireland at the Summer Olympics. Bastin 15:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

ok I have fixed them. so this means that Ireland (republic) had a separate team in 1924 even though the british team was still called 'Great Britain and Ireland' --Astrokey44 16:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Except that the Irish Free State (i.e. what is now the Republic of Ireland) was not a republic, but a self-governing dominion of the British Empire. King George V remained the Head of State (in the capacity as King of the United Kingdom until 1927, as King of Ireland from 1927 onwards). Bastin 17:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Succession Box Series

Most people have been using it for even those within political parties, considering that they are still successive titles. They just write things like 'Leader of the Conservative Party', etc. But if you don't like that, we can try to set up something else. The point of the templates it to try and avoid more templates and especially seemingly redundant ones. Most other succession boxes across wikipedia are actually running these templates via short links in the code. We tried to remove them all but it was too tedious so just undermining the original code had to do. Suggest to me something and I will see what I can set up.
–Whale y land ( Talk • Contributions )

I wasn't criticising the fundamental of using the succession boxes for party political positions, but rather their categorisation with s-off (were I to do it now, I'd use s-off, but only out of lack of a better one). Actually, I was just thinking in writing, so I haven't worked out exactly how frequently it would be used. Certainly, for many individuals that held two or more posts, it would be worthwhile: Beazley, Chirac, Dewey Gladstone, Henderson, Jackson, MacDonald, McLogan, Meighen, O'Brien, Peacock, Roosevelt, and hundreds of others around the world.

Thus, in the same mould as the other succession boxes, I suggest something like this:

|-style="text-align: center; background: #FFBF00;"

|align="center" colspan="3"|Party Political Offices

So, Ramsay MacDonald's succession boxes would look like:

Parliament of the United Kingdom
Preceded by J F L Rolleston	Member for Leicester 1906–1918	Succeeded by none
Preceded by John Edwards	Member for Aberavon 1922–1929	Succeeded by William George Cove
Preceded by Sidney Webb	Member for Seaham 1929–1935	Succeeded by Emanuel Shinwell
Political offices
Preceded by Herbert Henry Asquith	Leader of the Opposition 1922–1924	Succeeded by Stanley Baldwin
Preceded by Stanley Baldwin	Prime Minister of the United Kingdom 1924	Succeeded by Stanley Baldwin
Preceded by Stanley Baldwin	Leader of the House of Commons 1924	Succeeded by Stanley Baldwin
Preceded by The Marquess Curzon of Kedleston	Foreign Secretary 1924	Succeeded by Sir Austen Chamberlain
Preceded by Stanley Baldwin	Leader of the Opposition 1924–1929	Succeeded by Stanley Baldwin
Preceded by Stanley Baldwin	Prime Minister of the United Kingdom 1929–1935	Succeeded by Stanley Baldwin
Preceded by Stanley Baldwin	Leader of the House of Commons 1929–1935	Succeeded by Stanley Baldwin
Preceded by Stanley Baldwin	Lord President of the Council 1935–1937	Succeeded by The Viscount Halifax
Party Political Offices
Preceded by Founding Secretary	Labour Party Secretary 1900–1912	Succeeded by Arthur Henderson
Preceded by George Nicoll Barnes	Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party 1911–1914	Succeeded by Arthur Henderson
Preceded by John Robert Clynes	Leader of the British Labour Party 1922–1931	Succeeded by Arthur Henderson

Of course, one could change the title, the colour (it might be a bit bright), or the order in which it comes amongst other succession boxes, but I think that the idea of separating politics from government is good. Bastin 15:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

PR, GA then FAC

Copied from User talk:Batmanand

Is there anything else you want to do over at German occupation of Luxembourg in World War I? Or is it finished? If it is, I will take it to WP:PR and nominate it as a WP:GA asap, and then, once the peer review is over, will submit it to WP:FA. Outstanding work. Batmanand | Talk 11:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be ready. Right now, I'm looking through old Luxembourgian newspapers for appropriate photos (!). I think that the only barrier to it becoming an FA would be images. Of course, there's only one way to find out, and that's to nominate it, so that's probably the way to go now. Cheers. Bastin 11:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have nominated it for GA status, and put it up for peer review, as agreed. Good luck - I am away for two weeks from this Friday, so will probably not be here in time to see it go through WP:FAC; but let's hope it makes it across that minefield. Batmanand | Talk 11:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanket reverting

never [blanket revert] like that, when there are numerous different sorts of small edits: you must be explicit. Further such behaviour will be brought to the attention of WP:GA. Please read WP:OWN. --Mais oui! 23:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was explicit. See the talk page, where I detailed each of the complaints. This is not about a matter of WP:OWN, but more WP:CON; your proposal failed, so you decided to make as many silly edits as possible to make a point. Grow up. Bastin 23:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --Mais oui! 23:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this to be a personal attack; accusing an established editor of such a breach of protocol, when there is none (read the first criterion), is insulting in the extreme. Perhaps I flatter myself that you pick me out for a petty squabble (I know that you'd like to think of it that way), but this isn't the first time that we've disagreed, nor will it be the last. Your edits on the article at hand were crude, and it was purely chance that I was the first person to see them. If you think it's because I wrote most of the article, think again; articles don't become Good Articles by being completely POV. Bastin 23:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Luxembourg American

It was requested by another user that I move the page due to a discrepancy with a template. Please assume good faith when editing. I did not see your comment on the talk page, as I was moving it per another discussion after being asked to, so please do not make such a claim that I was being disrespectful, so please do not assume I was being disrespectful. Michael 18:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am sorry, but when I went to move the page, I assumed there was an error as with several other ethnic pages and made the move per another user's request. At that time, I was not of the knowledge that another user had previously moved the page. Michael 19:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

help from a native speaker

I just extended the article on Luxembourg during WWII. However, some native speaker should have a look at it. Cheers Spanish Inquisition 23:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]