User talk:W. Frank: Difference between revisions

Template:Attempting wikibreak

READ! READ! READ!

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nicely with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your :questions.

We're so glad you're here! --Simonkoldyk 18:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your warm and helpful welcome!

As a non-native English speaker I'm always a bit worried that my contribution will be unintelligible.

{{helpme}}

Have I done anything wrong by creating a new article? W. Frank 18:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you haven't. Be bold in updating pages! I've also answered this on Talk:Cabragh House. --ais523 10:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: I'm originally from Dresden in Germany but was a foundling by the occupying British forces after the firestorm. I'm semi-retired now. W. Frank 18:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} I noticed that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the oldest primary school in New Zealand and I don't feel qualified to write one. Instead I've e-mailed the current Principal of Nelson Central School and suggested he contribute one - was that a silly thing to do? W. Frank 19:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}

Why do I have two distinctly10:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)W. Frank different user pages?

The older (helpful) one is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:W_Frank and the newer (blank) one is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:W._Frank&redirect=no

?? W. Frank 10:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are User:W. Frank; the other page is at User talk:W Frank (notice the . after the initial initial in your username). User talk:W Frank should be deleted because it corresponds to a non-existent user; if you find the information useful, you can copy it to this page first; to request its deletion, place {{db-nouser}} on the page (in this case; there is a different tag for each speedy deletion reason). --ais523 10:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The former (not this page but the other) seems to have been created by mistake, as there is no user account by that name, you can safely ignore it or if you like redirect it here. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, one and all!

I've marked the phantom for deletion now ( I hope, I'm so stupid I may have done it wrong again...) W. Frank 10:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put a {{prod}} message on Nelson Central School because the article doesn't yet contain any content. I realise that you are waiting for Dr Potaka to respond to your email, but the article could have been created when he replies. Having empty articles make Wikipedia look bad. The effect of the message I put on the article is to ensure that it is deleted if nothing happens for five days or so. You could also start the article with information from the Ministry of Education. See how other New Zealand school articles are formatted, for example Logan Park High School.-gadfium 05:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I'm very new to all this and there's a lot to learn. Thank you for your help. My motivation was that I did not like a dead (or red) internal link in my Cabragh House article...
W. Frank 12:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also regarding the Nelson Central School article, any commentary about the article should go onto the article's talk page rather than onto the article itself. This is a general Wikipedia convention (see WP:TPG).
--Lost tourist 15:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, as you see above, I'm brand new and (hopefully) learning about this wonderful animal every day.

I've also replied to you on your user page and also in the article's talk page.

Just this once, and hopefully just for a few hours (maximum 99) could you leave the article as it is until Dr Potaka or another editor shows up to start it?

Please forgive me for being a Newbie editor. When writing my article for Cabragh House, I noticed a missing link for Nelson Central School. I then e-mailed Dr Potaka, Principal of Nelson Central School, suggesting he create (or delegate members of his staff) to create the missing article.

Subsequently I have received e-mails from others in the Nelson region indicating that he may be temporarily indisposed for the next couple of days.

I suggest, therefore, that you leave the Nelson Central School page in the condition I have reverted it to just now and including the scheduled for deletion box. That way if he, or no other editor, shows up to correct and expand the article, it will be deleted automatically in 5 days and if volunteers (or Dr Potaka himself, since I assume he will also be a Newbie to Wikipedia) show up in the meantime they will have a skeleton on which to hang flesh.

Thank you for your tolerance, forbearance and understanding
W. Frank 15:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)! W. Frank 15:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I suggested you see how other school articles were formatted, I didn't mean for you to copy the whole article into Nelson Central School. You ended up with a mess of information mostly about the other school. I've now changed the article into a bare-bones article about Nelson Central. It no longer needs the prod. Feel free to improve this article yourself, but don't revert it to the previous mess.-gadfium 19:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't, gadfium.

According to the edit history, that Revision as of 12:52, 7 December 2006 was made by 89.240.127.10

I may be stupid but I'm not so stupid as to spell it "Neslon Centraql Skool" as that anonymous editor did...

However, I do take your general point and I will go in and try and clean it up a bit later this afternoon. Thank you for your useful and pertinent comments.

W. Frank 15:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your change to Persian Walnut because at the time the walnuts were distributed by merchant marines, who were also, like their civilian counterparts maritime merchants. If I am wrong about this, please explain on the talk page before reverting. Thank you. KP Botany 18:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. Are we talking here about Royal Marines (the military) who were doing a bit of trading, or the English Merchant Navy (also doing a bit of trading) or what exactly?W. Frank 20:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your change to the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia link. This is because the name of the diocese is exactly that - with the comma. This is because the Anglican church in NZ is made up of three threads or traditions - Tikanga Pakeha (broadly those of European origin), Tikanga Maori (broadly those of Maori origin) and Tikanga Pasifika (broadly those of Pacific Island origin). The "Aotearoa" part of the name refers to the five Hui Amorangi, the "New Zealand" to the seven Dioceses - both of these split up New Zealand, but differently. So you are right that Aotearoa is New Zealand, but not that the name should have a slash in it. Ringbark 21:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting my inadvertent error - I mistakenly thought that this was an example of ignorant grammar rather than a considered ecclesiastical decision. God be with you! W. Frank 13:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks frank, it takes a lot to stand up in support for what you feel is worth speaking to. web 2.0 is a great development on line. Hope Fiji can work it out and not have UN intervention.

RoddyYoung 12:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad fedorov 17:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No.W. Frank 14:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on GRU page history is uncivil and personal attack. If you continue restoring obvious falsification that GRU was helping Saddam Hussein and would continue personal attack on me, I would report you on administrators noticeboard.Vlad fedorov 17:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We will have to agree to disagree that my comments were an uncivil and personal attack.

This is what I wrote as a comment:

"=== Large scale deletions without consensus ===

At 16:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC) I placed a comment on the talk page of User_talk:Vlad_fedorov who has been conspicuous by

• his absence from these pages [ie the talk pages of the GRU article]
• his consecutive deletions, without any prior discussion, of material provided by other editors

This is the exact quote of what I wrote on his user page:

"Wikipedia as a community has rules to prevent edit wars.

One of these is the 3RR rule.

If you wish to delete large passages of another editor's work without providing any references, it is more polite to discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page FIRST.

If you do not, your excisions may be regarded as vandalism.

Please proceed immediately to talk:GRU and discuss your point of view (POV) with fellow editors there before reverting this article again.

If you do not, you run the risk of being blocked from Wikipedia.

You may find that Wikipedia:Wikiquette provides some helpful guidance. Thank you for your anticipated compliance."

Within less than half an hour (and without any further discussion or comment) at 17:05, 8 April 2007 Vlad fedorov had expunged my comments using the following as his edit summary: "Personal offence removed"

I am posting my comments here [ie the talk pages of the GRU article] because I have a strong suspicion that any further help I offer on Vlad fedorov's user pages will also be expunged.W. Frank 17:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Now I have emphasised some points that I believe are relevant to your deprecated behaviour with regards to GRU, your own talk pages and elsewhere:

Wikipedia's contributors come from many different countries and cultures. We have different views, perspectives, and backgrounds, sometimes varying widely. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an encyclopedia.

Principles of Wikipedia etiquette

• Assume good faith. Wikipedia has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit. People come here to collaborate and write good articles.
• Treat others as you would have them treat you – even if they are new. We were all new once...
• Be polite, please!
  • Keep in mind that raw text is ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of you. Irony isn't always obvious - text comes without facial expressions, vocal inflection or body language. Be careful of the words you choose – what you intended might not be what others perceive, and what you read might not be what the author intended.
• Work toward agreement.
• Argue facts, not personalities.
• Don't ignore questions.
  • If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate.
• Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste.
• Be civil.
• Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if other editors are not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than they, not less. That way at least you're not spiralling down to open conflict and name-calling by your own accord; you're actively doing something about it: taking a hit and refraining from hitting back – everybody appreciates that (or at least they should).
  • However, don't hesitate to let the other party know that you're not comfortable with their tone in a neutral way – otherwise they might think you're too dense to understand their "subtlety", and you'll involuntarily encourage them (e.g. "I know you've been sarcastic above, but I don't think that's helping us resolve the issue. However, I don't think your argument stands because...").
• Be prepared to apologize. In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we hadn't. Say so.
• Forgive and forget.
• Recognize your own biases and keep them in check.
• Give praise when due. Everybody likes to feel appreciated, especially in an environment that often requires compromise. Drop a friendly note on users' talk pages.
• Remove or summarize resolved disputes that you initiated.
• Help mediate disagreements between others.
• If you're arguing, take a break. If you're mediating, recommend a break.
  • Take it slow. If you're angry, take time out instead of posting or editing. Come back in a day or a week. You might find that someone else has made the desired change or comment for you. If no one is mediating, and you think mediation is needed, enlist someone.
  • Walk away or find another Wikipedia article to distract yourself – there are 6,926,348 articles on Wikipedia! Take up a Wikiproject or WikiReader, or lend your much-needed services at pages needing attention and Cleanup. Or write a new article.
  • Nominate yourself for a list of other articles to work on, provided by SuggestBot.
• Remember what Wikipedia is not.
• Review the list of faux pas.
• Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except in cases of clear vandalism. Explain reversions in the edit summary box.
  • Amend, edit, discuss.
• Remind yourself that these are people you're dealing with. They are individuals with feelings and probably have other people in the world who love them. Try to treat others with dignity.
• Remember the Golden Rule: "treat others as you want them to treat you."

How to avoid abuse of talk pages

• Most people take pride in their work and in their point of view. Egos can easily get hurt in editing, but talk pages are not a place for striking back. They're a good place to comfort or undo damage to egos, but most of all they're for forging agreements that are best for the articles they're attached to. If someone disagrees with you, try to understand why, and in your discussion on the talk pages take the time to provide good reasons why you think your way is better.
• Don't label or personally attack people or their edits.
  • Terms like "racist", "sexist" or even "poorly written" make people defensive. This makes it hard to discuss articles productively. If you have to criticize, you must do it in a polite and constructive manner.
• Always make clear what point you are addressing, especially in replies.
  • In responding, make it clear what idea you are responding to. Quoting a post is O.K., but paraphrasing it or stating how you interpreted it is better.

Working towards a neutral point of view

When we correct violations of the neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, we often make the mistake of using phrases like "foo points out that" or "xy explains". These phrases themselves can be seen as non-NPOV, as they imply a certain agreement by Wikipedia. The original author then often sees this as non-NPOV and deletes the changes, and eventually, an edit war results. It is better to use the following procedure:

1. Inquire politely on the article's talk page about aspects of the article you consider non-NPOV (unless they are really egregious), and suggest replacements.
2. If no reply comes, make the substitutions. (Use your watchlist to keep track of what you want to do.)
3. If a reply comes, try to agree about the wording to be used.

That way, when an agreement is reached, an edit war is very unlikely. The disadvantage is that the article stays in an unsatisfying state for a longer period of time, but an article that changes frequently doesn't create good impression with other Wikipedians or of the project as a whole.

A few things to bear in mind

• Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent all views (more at NPOV), instead of supporting one over another, even if you believe something strongly. Talk ("discussion") pages are not a place to debate value judgments about which of those views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis. Use article talk pages to discuss the accuracy/inaccuracy, POV bias, or other problems in the article, not as a soapbox for advocacy.
• If someone disagrees with you, this does not necessarily mean that the person hates you, that the person thinks you're stupid, that the person themself is stupid, or that the person is mean. When people post opinions without practical implications for the article, it's best to just leave them be. What you think is not necessarily right or necessarily wrong – a common example of this is religion. Before you think about insulting someone's views, think about what would happen if they insulted your religion. Also, always remember that anything that is written on Wikipedia is kept permanently, even if it is not visible.
• Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle. When you amend and edit, it is remarkable how you might see something useful in what was said. Most people have something useful to say. That includes you. Deletion upsets people and makes them feel they have wasted their time – consider moving their text to a sub-directory of their user pages instead (saying not quite the right place for it but so they can still use it): much less provocative.
• Wikipedia invites you to be bold. Before initiating discussion, ask yourself: is this really necessary to discuss? Could I provide a summary with my edit and wait for others to quibble if they like?
• You can always take a discussion to e-mail or to your user page if it's not essential to the article.
• If you know you don't get along with someone, don't interact with them more than you need to. Unnecessary conflict distracts everyone from the task of making a good encyclopaedia, and is just unpleasant. Actually following someone you dislike around Wikipedia is sometimes considered stalking, and is frowned on because it can be disruptive. If you don't get along with someone, try to become more friendly. If that doesn't help the situation then it is probably best to avoid them.
• Though editing articles is acceptable (and, in fact, encouraged), editing the signed words of another editor on a talk page or other discussion page is generally not acceptable, as it can alter the intent or message of the original comment and misrepresent the original editor's thoughts. Try to avoid editing another editor's comments unless absolutely necessary.

If you really continue to regard any of this as a personal attack (as opposed to an attack on your intolerable attempts at political censorship) then I think it would indeed be a very good idea to "report [me] on administrators noticeboard" - perhaps I should not have pointed you towards the WP articles referenced above.W. Frank 14:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have published the first text on case of Alexey Galkin so-called "confessions". The other texts would follow shortly. Especially on the allegation of hiding Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction" and allegations of promoting the terrorism. I advise you, as you are not competent in Russian and couldn't study Russian sources which are usually not published by Western media, to stop your dispute. I would like to note that both of the articles I use in my text about Alexey Galkin are from Novaya Gazeta - which is anti-Putin newspaper. One of their journalists was Anna Politkovskaya. Both of the articles are supportive of Alexey Galkin. They contain not only the interview and transcript of "confession", but also comments of the newspaper journalists and conclusion of phsychologist who has studied the videotape of Galkin "confessions". Moreover, the transcript of Alexey Galkin press conference which was interrupted in two places by Abu Movsaev is telling enough about voluntarity of these confessions. If I would describe in such way all accounts of false allegations in this article, the article itself would be bigger and contain rather irrelevant information, than infromation on [GRU]]. Vlad fedorov 08:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think that my user talk pages (or yours) are the place to discuss this. Please take this to talk:GRU and discuss your point of view (POV) with fellow editors there. W. Frank 14:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W.Frank, firstly howiya! secondly the terrorism category in the - the term terrorism is a divisive and largely POV term and is outlined as a term to be avoided by wiki. It is usually used where the target of an attack was specifically civilians. I know you didn't add the cat but you replaced it, however, it is an incorrect and POV category - unless you think the British Army targeted the civilian they killed because they thought he was a civilian and are happy to write into the article that the British Army are terrorists for killing the civilian then I would suggest that this category does not suit this article.

P.S. I am always happy to help in any way and I am always contactable on my talk page. regards --Vintagekits 15:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Good day to you, Sir! Thank you for your friendly offer of assistance and for your tone of voice. I try and steer clear of controversy since there seem to be so many more impolite editors on Wikipedia these days.

2) I do so agree with your point of view regarding less inflammatory wording in article text - however, in categorisations we need to be brief and pithy - a bit like a tabloid headline, in fact.

However, if you check the edit logs for the article Warrenpoint Ambush you will see that I did not restore, add or replace the Category:Terrorist incidents in the 1970s.

It was already there in the version by the previous editor user:One Night In Hackney. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warrenpoint_Ambush&oldid=121540790 if you doubt my veracity.

My general policy is to have as many helpful categorisations as possible since it helps readers explore the wonderful source of knowledge that is Wikipedia - especially children.

Now, I wonder if we can continue to discuss this at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_9#Category:IRA_killings

Since I'm always reluctant to censor the Good Faith efforts of others, may I ask you to copy edit this dialogue there?

3) Sadly, in this era of assymetrical warfare the concept of civilian has rather lapsed. I was a foundling in the smoking ruins of a city that was "terrorised" by the American hero Winston S Churchill and his Terrorflieger. Do you not think the categorisation is correct since the Warrenpoint Ambush article records one of the greatest military defeats of the British Army in recent years?W. Frank 15:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I edit Irish Republicanism articles? Perhaps because they needed improving? I'll take selected examples from my user page.

• Dessie O'Hare - Version before I edited it, WP:BLP disaster wouldn't you agree?

The latest version that you edited is much more encyclopaedic and multi-faceted; well done and you must be proud of all your hard work!

I'll look at the other articles when I have time - please be patient.

W. Frank 19:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Colombia Three - Version before I edited it, a lot of the information wasn't sourced by the one (!) reference provided, and it too had WP:BLP problems.
• Northern Bank robbery - Version before I edited it, again major sourcing and WP:BLP problems.
• Provisional Irish Republican Army - Version before I edited it, looks a lot better and has approx 30 more references.
• Sinn Féin - Version before I started improving it, now has triple the number of references.
• Chronology of Provisional IRA actions - Version before I edited it, had no references as opposed to the 74 (and growing) number it has at present.

So is it unreasonable for an editor with an interest in a certain subject area to concentrate on that subject area, considering the terrible state of those articles? Should the editor be branded as a "comrade" for improving the articles? I don't think so. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have to make allowances for language confusion here. I don't regard the terms republican or comrade pejorative (of themselves and obviously it depends on the context)... {long passages moved/archived to "Green Zone"} ...

Hello W.Frank,

Please come back to GRU article where Biophys who published allegations of GRU participating in bombing of buildings in Moscow and rest of Russia and allegations of helping Saddam to hide his weapons now deletes the whole texts without discussion. Vlad fedorov 04:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to explain why IRA is used in that article, to prevent further confusion. Post-1972 the Official IRA was on ceasefire, and the only active group using the term IRA was the Provisionals, which remained the case until the Continuity IRA became active in 1996. Unless more than one IRA is being referred to in a particular article or there's a risk of confusion, the standard usage is the acronym IRA. PIRA is not an acronym generally used except by the British Armed Forces, the common name in British, Irish and American media is the IRA. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. However, I think that a certain degree of precision is required in encyclopedia articles. US presidents may say they are making a state visit to England, but we both know that, if it is a state visit, they really mean the UK. However, you are by far the expert when it comes to these matters, so please feel free to revert my edit if you feel it muddies rather than clarifies the waters. Tschuess! W. Frank 02:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I thought it best to explain, should you be about to make any further changes of that nature. The media never (well, hardly ever) use the PIRA term, and even the PIRA article makes it clear it's more commonly known as the IRA. I think some clarification may be needed on the Fitzgerald part similar to your edit, but not in that exact form. At present the sentence starts with "Irish Prime Minister Garret FitzGerald", so it would make more sense to clarify that particular Irish rather than the latter one possibly? I'll change the PIRA parts back for now, but await further discussion tomorrow on that part. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the edits I've made to the PIRA article now meet with your approval - I've clarified the reference to the Irish PM and inserted a fact template. I'm off to enjoy the good weather while it lasts now, I hope the sun shines on you too! W. Frank 18:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually thought that statement was sourced later in the article, but as it transpired it wasn't but it isn't really under dispute anyway and it's since been sources. The Newry page still needs slight tweaking I think, I'll take a look at it later. Sanitise, moi? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you recreated this category. I have deleted it again; I left the talk page undeleted and suggest you take forward any argument for recreating the category there. Although the result of the AfD debate was keep, I think the debate has moved on a good way since then and can see no useful purpose now in retaining it. Please let me know if you disagree. --Guinnog 17:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Frank. I removed "geographical" because it is likely to lead to conflict and was unnecessary - if the article begins with "The British Isles is a group of islands ..." why is it necessary to explain that the term is "geographical"? I added "... and its use is avoided in relations between the governments of the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom" because this is true (if necessary I can add references?) and it is notable that an otherwise common term would be deliberately avoided in dialogue between the two sovereign states that occupy the region. This is why I believe that "geographical" is likely to lead to conflict. When describing the names of places, "geographical" and "political" terms are often contrasted with each other. "Geographical" can be read to imply that a term is a neutral, not to be confused with the world of politics. Opening a sentence that deals with political objections to a term by stating that the term is "geographical" thus implies a judgement on the validity of those objection. --sony-youth^pléigh 00:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. I think we will have to agree to disagree. I think that one or two words in the lede emphasising that the "British Isles" is a geographical term rather than a political term or a statement of colonial possession is appropriate to dispel any confusion right from the start. The business about the naming dispute is dealt with in depth in a separate section and a separate article referenced within the British Isles article, so I think the emphasis is wrong. God bless! W. Frank 12:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion policy Tyrenius 04:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've given up on the weather here in Glasgow ever improving, so I'm off to start my belated holiday. W. Frank ✉ 07:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was heartened by your extremely intelligent and factual remarks on the AfD for the Hereditary Peerage Association, which has become quite a talked-about body in London. The nominator is constantly AfDing anything to do with the old British establishment which he quite obviously loathes. Thank you again for your comments. A breath of fresh air. David Lauder 19:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that he voted in support of the HPA for any other reason than to have a go at me then I am shocked.--Vintagekits 21:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go and sit on your perch.W. Frank ✉

Please stop removing sourced statements and changing them with your preferred POV version. You have no consensus for these changes, and have refused to engage in discussion on the talk page. If you continue I will seek dispute resolution. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not giving editors a chance to either discuss or implement changes without reversion. This article is not your personal possession and I am quite happy to discuss changes with you - indeed that is my preference - however the consensus that you speak of is a recent status quo achieved through driving away other editors with a less vehement and single purpose point of view. None of the quoted references support your POV that the lede should summarise an illusionary targeting of military and civilian economic targets rather than the results of the bombings. Just actually read the BBC articles you are so fond of quoting. You are in grave dange of breaching Key Policies 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. W. Frank ✉ 18:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution here you come then. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Irish neutrality during World War II has been nominated for deletion. Please add your opinion to the discussion on AfD. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 23:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unhelpful comment; see: here.--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in this Arb Com case. --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me to this, Major, but life isn't long enough; I've already been victimised by the provisional wing of the wikipedia administration and I don't want to be set upon by the FSB as well - these guys are professional you know, in every sense of the wordW. Frank ✉ 17:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing text against the consensus on Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army. Brixton Busters 10:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]