User talk:Necrothesp/Archive 14/Archive 1

Chris Roy Welcomes You

Hello Necrothesp, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the Wikipedia:Help desk or (if you want a broader audience) the village pump, or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

• You can introduce yourself on the new users page.
• You can find lots more information, including open tasks and daily tips, at the community portal.
• You can sign your name using four tildes, like this: ~~~~.
• Before saving a page, it's a good idea to use the Show preview button to review your edits. Also, consider writing a summary for each edit.
• The Tutorial is a great way to learn the basics in a more perspicuous fashion.

Again, welcome! Chris Roy 00:42, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Note from Infrogmation

Nice work on the Venice and Florence related articles! Cheers, -- Infrogmation 18:06, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Msg from AllyUnion

Just to let you know the article Troop is listed on Wikipedia:Most wanted stubs. This is why I suggested it to be moved to the Wiktionary, since it was already very much short. See my comments on Talk:Troop. - Allyunion 23:31, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Scots Greys

Pease see Motto Talk:Scots Greys – Philip Baird Shearer 14:15, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Structure of the British Army

I've removed the Yeomanry and only given 22 SAS because the way the page is laid out just concerns the Regular Army. There is a seperate page for the Territorial Army, which includes the Yeomanry regiments and the two TA SAS regiments. - Hammersfan 20.20, 4/9/04.

20.25 4/9/04 - The link for Territorial Army is given at the top of the page. Hammersfan

20.35 4/9/04 - I have added the units of the TA into a seperate section of the page. While I am aware that the TA is an integral part of the British Army (as my father was in the TA for 20 years), I feel that TA units should be listed sperately from regular units, as they are seperate. Otherwise, the infantry battalions, combat arms and services should be deleted from the TA list.

Lance sergeant

Hi Necrothesp. In Lance Sergeant you say "In the Foot Guards, all Corporals are automatically appointed Lance Sergeant on their promotion, so lance sergeants perform the same duties as corporals in other regiments". Aren't lance sergeants already corporals? Shouldn't that read that lance sergeants perform the same duties as sergeants in other regiments? Moriori 04:00, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

• No, Lance Sergeants perform the same duties as corporals, since there are effectively no corporals. They command sections, usually a corporal's job. They do not act as platoon senior NCOs, a job still done by full sergeants. -- Necrothesp 15:27, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• OK. Although Lance Sergeant says a "Lance Sergeant (LSgt or L/Sgt) is a Corporal acting in the rank of Sergeant", in effect a lance sergeant has the same rank as sergeant but does not carry out the same duties? Moriori 23:51, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • When lance sergeants existed throughout the army it was certainly the case that they did the same job as sergeants, but since all Guards corporals are now appointed lance sergeant on promotion it is effectively just done for traditional reasons and lance sergeants continue to perform the same duties they would have done as corporals. Essentially, they are no longer acting sergeants, just corporals with a different appointment. I've amended the article to (hopefully) clear up any confusion. -- Necrothesp 00:28, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Nice one. I think that's clearer. Cheers. Moriori 00:34, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

List of words having different meanings in British and American English

Hi, Necrothesp. Just wondered why you took exception to my note to the effect that "engine driver" is obsolete British English. I think very few would refer to today's train-driving members of the RMT or ASLEF (ironically, in the US/UK context, the Amalgamated Sociey of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen) as "engine drivers", which has a Thomas the Tank Engine ring to it. Fair enough for the drivers of steam locomotives on preserved railways, but the majority of trains in Britain today don't even have self-contained "engines" (= locomotives): the man at the front end drives the train, not the engine. -- Picapica 09:47, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Hi. I think the majority of people wouldn't actually make a distinction between modern and obsolete usage. The term 'engine driver' is still used by many laymen in my experience, and that's what the list is about - common usage. -- Necrothesp 11:02, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You think that the use of "period" as an exclamation of finality is neither rare nor an Americanism in BE? I would say that it is exceedingly rare, verging on the idiosyncratic affectational of an odd Americanism...
James F. (talk) 13:55, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Sorry, I would completely disagree. I use it myself. My family and many other people I know use it. I have heard it all my life. The OED does not list it as an Americanism and I have certainly never associated it with American English - in fact, before it appeared on this list I would never have considered it to be American usage at all (as a full stop, yes, but not as an emphatic statement of finality). -- Necrothesp 14:02, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • All that can suggest is that it's a regionalism. To most of us in most other regions, it's either rare or non-existent. To claim a word (or usage thereof) is common in BrE as a whole, on the basis of one or two regions, is just silly. -- Smjg 18:05, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • And precisely what basis do you have for your claim that it's only heard in one or two regions? Is it not a little arrogant to claim that because you are not familiar with something it is not valid? -- Necrothesp 22:35, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • The fact that I have never heard it used by Brits in my life. (The only exception is that Kotex advert, but to me that's just borrowing the Americanism to force a pun.) I can see no other possible explanation for our completely opposite experiences. -- Smjg 11:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Odd. I've lived in a number of places around the UK and have heard it quite frequently. The only rational explanation I can see is that we live in different planes of existence. -- Necrothesp 12:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The latest version is better, insofar as it implies that the usage "period = end of discussion" is principally American , though I would say it is overwhelmingly so. I agree wholeheartedly with James F. that its employment in a British context as an extension of the "period (=full stop)" meaning (for that is what it amounts to) strikes the British ear as almost affectedly American -- not far off the use of a phrase like "you guys". It sounds like something picked up from watching too many American films (or do I mean "movies"?). As my mother would have said: "I've told you what I think and that's it. Full stop." -- Picapica 10:52, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. Odd. As I've said, I grew up with it, and it doesn't strike me as American at all. And nobody I know has ever been one for Americanisms (quite the opposite, in fact, and I certainly don't pick things up "from watching too many American films", as anyone who knows me will be aware from my strenuous campaigns to get people to use the correct British pronunciation of that bane of my life 'lieutenant'!). The term 'period' for a full stop used to be British (although it is now almost exclusively American in a punctuation context) and I always assumed that this was merely one usage of it that survived in British English, never as something we'd acquired from the Americans (and the OED appears to agree with me). As I said, I didn't even know the Americans used it at all until it appeared on this list - I don't recall ever hearing it in an American film.

OED definition: "The point or character that marks the end of a complete sentence; a full stop (.). Also added to a statement to emphasize a place where there is or should be a full stop, freq. (colloq.) with the implication ‘and that is all there is to say about it’, ‘and it is as simple as that’."

No mention of it being American, merely of it being colloquial (and note the 'frequently'). But, as any of us who know anything about language knows, what sounds normal to one person can sound odd to another. Happens all the time. -- Necrothesp 11:26, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"...the correct British pronunciation of that bane of my life 'lieutenant'"

Would that be an Army lieutenant (lef-tenant) or a Royal Navy lieutenant (luh-tenant)? :- )

-- Picapica 15:50, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That would be both of them, although being ex-TA I naturally favour the former. But certainly not lootenant. Too many American cop shows (and too much Star Trek) have coloured people's perceptions, I fear. -- Necrothesp 16:02, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Afternoon, Necrothesp. I was wondering what you disagreed with about 'semi' as a UK/US English difference. I would claim that the sentence "Hi, my name is Blotwell and I live in a semi" is valid in both languages and means completely different things (a house in UK, a truck in US). Am I wrong? Blotwell 18:38, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Ah, I realise what you're getting at now you say it. I thought it was confusing because in both cases the word 'semi' itself actually means the same thing ('partly'). Yes, fair enough, but should probably have the basic meaning, which is the same in both countries, added to allay confusion. -- Necrothesp 19:13, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad I saw this discussion - if nobody else does, I'll add semi back in, taking the above into account, as I agree that it should be included. WLD 01:12, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Secret police

Necrothesp, is there really any purpose to be gained in opening a revision war over the issue of whether we are allowed to say that someone else is limiting what we can say?

Wayland --wayland 10:34, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• None whatsoever. Please see my comment at the bottom of Talk:Secret police. I do not see the point of duplication. Either add all intelligence/counterintelligence agencies (which would be pointless, seeing as there is already a list of them elsewhere, linked to from this page) or only include those bodies traditionally seen as secret police. That is what I am trying to do. I fail to see how most of the agencies you added can even be vaguely considered as secret police, seeing as they are either overseas or monitoring agencies. And that's a pragmatic opinion, not a political one. I think that most agencies that I have included would be happy to acknowledge that they are political/secret police and would see no shame in that. The western agencies however are only such in your POV. Remember that this is an encyclopaedia, not a forum for personal political views (yours, mine or anyone else's), and therefore the final line of your paragraph was, I felt, inappropriate since it expressed your own views. -- Necrothesp 10:55, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• • A relevant related question is, particularly during the Cold War, did people in the DDR, USSR, &c., with secret police agencies listed in the article, or did the governments of such countries/entities, describe any North-American agencies as being secret police? This is in addition to the widespread description of them as such in some circles. Another point is that the FBI and United States Secret Service are not merely monitoring agencies, and that there have been numerous documented colourable instances of their acting for the suppression of political dissent, the former not merely in the Hoover period. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:15, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, it was a simple statement of fact. --wayland 11:22, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Have you ever read any encyclopaedias? Have you seen comments like that in them? It's basically a comment predicated on the writer's own views, which is not appropriate. -- Necrothesp 11:24, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The question "Have you ever read any encyclopaedias?" is personally insulting. There is no excuse for descending to that level. --wayland 11:29, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Sorry if you took it that way. It wasn't meant to be. I simply fail to see how you can justify this sort of comment if you are familiar with the normal neutral style of encyclopaedias. You fail to answer the second point, I notice. The sentence I removed also borders on self-reference since it refers to Wikipedia and its editing itself, which is another good reason to remove it. I just can't see the problem, I'm afraid. I'm trying to contribute to a NPOV article. You seem to be trying to insert views that you know will be controversial and that others will remove (it happened before I worked on the article, and it will happen again). I would be surprised if anyone would be so outraged at the inclusion of any agencies I've added that they'd remove them (and if they did and they can justify their removal, then fair enough). But what do you hope to achieve? Aren't there other websites that would be happy to post these opinons? Why here in an NPOV encyclopaedia? -- Necrothesp 11:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I left the answering of other comment until the personal insult was apologised for.

To return to the issue: Wikipedia has a reason for existing because it is a highly unusual form of encyclopedia. If it were the same as traditional encyclopedias there would be no reason to bother writing it at all. As such we all, of course, understand that disputes can arise. Your point of view seems, to you, like fact. It doesn't to me. I have no interest in putting up websites as you suggest which have biased views on them. I am only interested in establishing the most NPOV, factual account of things possible. To exclude national and international security agencies such as the FBI and NSA from an article on secret police is clearly a biased political POV. They must be referred to here in some form if this isn't to descend into a completely biased work of propaganda. --wayland 11:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• It is still an encyclopaedia and as such is intended to be neutral and not refer to its editing processes within the articles. I might add that your POV also apparently seems, to you, like fact. But back to the point, please justify why you think agencies without police powers can possibly be secret police agencies. To me, that sounds illogical. It's not POV or a reflection of my political views (which are not, I suspect, what you think they are), simply logic. Do you think all intelligence agencies should be included in the article? If so, what is the purpose of the separate articles on intelligence agencies (do we really want duplication)? If not, then why not, when they all do pretty much the same job? Seems to me clearer to leave out all those that do not have a clearly defined secret police role and powers. They are already linked to, after all. -- Necrothesp 12:17, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A statement of fact about any subject (including the subject of editing) is neutral by virtue of being a fact. Please list which of the agencies mentioned (FBI, CIA, NSA, MI5 etc. in you POV do not have policing powers and I will describe what policing powers they have (if appropriate). --wayland 13:05, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, BTW: the answer to your other question is over on the other thread on the discussion page for Secret Police. --wayland 13:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Read Wikipedia's policies on self-reference for your comment about editing. As to agencies, the CIA only operates overseas, as does MI6. MI5 has no police powers whatsoever. GCHQ is a listening post. Speaking for the British agencies, none have enforcement powers, which is surely a prerequisite for anything classified as a police force. -- Necrothesp 13:21, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Enforcement powers would be a prerequisite for classification as a police force, but not for classification as police. Our British police have been using the term "police service" instead of "police force" for some years now. --wayland 14:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• That's only to be 'user friendly'. Their remit and powers haven't changed. And I don't know of any force other than the Met who use 'service' as an official part of their name. I certainly don't agree that only police forces have to have enforcement powers (the Americans have always called them police departments anyway). I don't know of any organisation that uses the name police that doesn't have such powers. -- Necrothesp 14:53, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So the organisation has to use the name police before they can be described as police? Why?

--wayland 15:21, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Where did I say that precisely? Many of the organisations I've listed on the Secret police page myself don't have 'police' in their names. I said they had to have enforcement powers, not that they had to use the name. -- Necrothesp 15:28, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's a simple interaction, you said organisation which uses the name and I said So the organisation has to use the name ---? See? --wayland 15:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I said that all organisations that I know of that call themselves police have police powers, not that an organisation had to call itself police to have police powers. Not the same at all. -- Necrothesp 15:56, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's not what I was saying though...

--wayland 16:21, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Sorry? -- Necrothesp 16:27, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mmm. Quite. Nevermind. --wayland 17:39, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page was last modified 16:28, 12 Oct 2004. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details).

Is a King one of his own admirals?

My browser doesn't interpolate lines,so I'm putting this under your last-modified line.Anyway,you restored King George VI to Admirals of the Fleet,but I think that a Sovereign not promoted to the rank prior to accession,and who does not abdicate,never effectively holds the rank even if wearing its uniform.The King can hold no office of himself,nor any peerage;a military rank I think is the same.Certainly Whitaker's Almanack has long listed THE QUEEN above and separate from all officers of each service.So I don't think George VI belonged on the list.--L.E./12.144.5.2/[email protected]

• Since kings have an official date of promotion (even if that is their date of accession) they do indeed hold the rank and are acknowledged by the services as holding that rank. And the King does hold a peerage - he is Duke of Lancaster (as is the Queen, in fact, the only female duke in the country). -- Necrothesp 16:48, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Whether or not the Sovereign is really Duke of Normandy or of Lancaster,as is believed by some in each of those locales,is a matter of debate.However,the Sovereign's position in relation to the Armed Forces is quite distinct from that of a holder of their highest rank.Do they draw salaries?--L.E./12.144.5.2/[email protected]

I'm sure they would be perfectly entitled to if they so desired. I doubt very much whether the Duke of Edinburgh draws a salary. Would you deny that he holds the three highest ranks too? -- Necrothesp 12:06, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Duke holds the ranks,by appointment of the Queen.If he were Sovereign,he would have a different relationship to the forces even if he wore the uniform.It's a question of being the same person as the one you work for,and I don't think one can wear both hats.Prince Philip's death would make the Prince of Wales Duke of Edinburgh,but the Queen's subsequent death would make the Prince cease to be Duke of Edinburgh because the Dukedom would merge in the Crown.So too with the position of being one of the Queen's admirals.--L.E./12.144.5.2/[email protected]

You seemed to be implying that whether an admiral drew a salary or not was important. I was simply pointing out that it made no difference to his status. It has always been my understanding that the armed forces DO consider that the King holds the appropriate ranks and does not just wear the uniform. If this was not the case then they would not acknowledge a promotion date. I would also point out that the Queen is Colonel-in-Chief of many regiments and holds the rank of Honorary Air Commodore in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force (and Air Commodore-in-Chief of other air force organisations throughout the Commonwealth). She does not just wear the uniform, but also holds the appointment. If she could not hold rank in her armed forces then she could not hold these appointments, honorary though they may be. I really don't think we're going to agree here. -- Necrothesp 22:10, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I suppose not...but does George VI actually appear on his own Navy Rolls with that rank and date?

Meanwhile...I think more work can be done on army ranks above full General.Nepal had Commanding-General and Senior General,were these still below their Field Marshals?North Korea established a rank for Kim Il Sung variously translated as Generalissimo (where I listed him) and "Grand Marshal" in 1992,they also have Marshal(I added some there,two are alive) and Vice-Marshal(there are 13).Marshal of the Soviet Union was the highest of THREE kinds of Marshal in the Soviet forces,all above full general and below Generalissimo.Are all the ones in the MSU article marshals of the highest degree?--L.E./12.144.5.2/[email protected]

I suspect that a Nepalese Field Marshal is senior to a Commanding General, although they may be two different translations of the same rank. I believe the Soviet Marshals listed in the MSU article are only those who held the actual rank of MSU. -- Necrothesp 20:04, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Relationship between Midshipmen and Master's Mates

Part of your contribution to the article Master#Maritime_usage says that master's mates were young men who lacked the family connections to be rated as midshipmen. I am a fan of nautical fiction, as I suspect you are too. And that is the impression one can get from reading nautical fiction. I suspect it is more complicated than that. You said that the master's mate is a warrant rank. Various warrant officers were standing officers who received their warrants from outside bodies. For instance, the sick and hurt board, for a surgeon. Didn't masters receive their warrant from a kind of nautical guild? In those days the ship's captain had latitude in the ratings he assigned to his crew. And, I believe that the rank of midshipmen was one that he was allowed to assign, without access to outside authority.

I am on a nautical fiction mailing list. One of my correspondents on that list is related to Pellew, Lord Exmouth. He is not a lineal descendant, but is descended from a cousin. IIRC Pellew's cousin served as a Master's Mate after serving as a Midshipmen. IIRC becoming a Master's Mate was a promotion.

I think that it is generally the case that midshipmen were appointed by patronage, usually of an admiral or other senior public figure with naval connections. I'm not sure whether a captain could appoint midshipmen himself. Masters' mates on the other hand were usually older lower middle class men who could not find such patronage and had often previously served as mates on merchant vessels. Captain James Cook is a good example of this. He served as an apprentice and mate on merchant vessels for eleven years and then enlisted in the Royal Navy at the age of 27 as an able seaman. He was rated master's mate less than a month later as it became obvious that he was a skilled navigator and became sailing master less than two years later. He then spent eleven years as a master before being commissioned lieutenant (actually relatively unusual - once a man had become a sailing master he usually stayed a sailing master).

A bit more research turns up the fact that, interestingly, Pellew himself apparently joined as a captain's servant and then seems to have been rated midshipman, apparently by the captain himself, which tends to support what you say (Fletcher Christian had also originally joined the RN as a midshipman). The captain in question was an unusual man himself - he'd once been a boatswain, which must have been extremely unusual. I suspect that master's mates were usually men of previous maritime experience who were too old to be midshipmen (Christian joined at 19 and didn't stay a mid for long - he became an acting lieutenant, then a master's mate, then an acting lieutenant again) and as a general rule midshipmen tended to be of a higher social class. -- Necrothesp 13:05, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Obermann Question

Hello, good sir. Thanks for your great edits to the SS rank page. I was curious if you have any source material for the rank of Obermann. I've heard of that rank before, but wonder if it is merely a rumor. I have never actually seen a German reference to it, only in a few US/UK textbooks. P.S.- "The English, the English, the English are best!" -Husnock 6 Nov 2004

• Hi. It's my understanding that Mann and Obermann were used by the Allgemeine-SS and Schütze and Oberschütze (and all the other permutations - Kanonier/Oberkanonier, Fahrer/Oberfahrer etc etc) were used by the Waffen-SS in exactly the same way as they were by the Heer. I've certainly seen it recorded, but I honestly can't remember whether that was only in English-language publications or whether I've seen it in official German publications. -- Necrothesp 19:30, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, the reason I changed Lieutenant General to Generalleutnant in the Gruppenführer article is that many military historians (and I'm one of them) consider that a Generalleutnant in the German Army was actually equivalent to a Major-General in the British/US Armies. There are three reasons for this. a) The German Army had the extra rank of Generaloberst above full General. b) The German Army had no Brigadiers. c) At the beginning of the Second World War at least, most German divisions were under Generalleutnants. Divisions are always commanded by Major-Generals in the British Army. Responsibility therefore seems to equate between the two. And the designation of the SS Generalmajor equivalent as a Brigadeführer would seem to bear this out - that he was equivalent in rank to a Brigadier in the British Army. -- Necrothesp 19:41, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Warrant Officers

Hi there, I have added the following reply to the issue raised on the Compatative rank table:

OK there is a lot of information through the long evolution of this table, and how it presented is open to discussion. However, the point of the table is to show nearest equivalence in each service. The top three appointments in the US forces are all still E-9 (pay grade) or OR-9 (NATO) ranks. The seniority of the Sergeant Major of the Army is more ceremonial than in a practical command structure in much the same way as the Conductors et al in the BA appointments. The nearest equivalent appointment in function to a Command Serg Maj is the RSM (and other regimental titles). There is also a similar comparrison that can be mde between First Sergeants and British CSMs. I agree the US actually distinguish senior appointments as ranks rather than appointments by description, but the E8 and E9 ranks are often presented parrallel on many tables indicating that their senitority is more nominal in much the same way as that of some WO1 or WO2 appointments over others. Dainamo 11:30, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

British/American English

Hello Necrothesp,

thank-you for you amendments to my additions to the British/American English pages. I'll add a bit more to your discussion further up this page. That group of articles piqued my interest as I have had to work closely with American colleagues over many years, and have had to semi-automatically translate my British English emails and documentation into a form suitable for my colleagues. I can well remember that 'bespoke' was a term that completely confused them.

One thing I noticed was a very different interpretation of 'a beer' between the two cultures (at least London & Washington DC). If you say to a British colleague "Let's go out for a beer", it generally means that you will end up drinking several beers. If you say the same thing to an American, it's taken literally as each of you drinking a single bottle of beer, then going your separate ways. It could have had something to do with not having to drive in London. The question I would have is where this could be documented. It might seem trivial, but the British beer culture seemed somewhat dissolute to my American colleagues.

Anyway, thanks again for your improvements to my contribution.

WLD 01:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mounted Police

Hi from Adrian, I just want to make a friendly point about passing on the reasons for an edit. I wouldn't have needed to reinstate the mounted police pic if you had told me it was the City of London police in the Edit Comment box, I was very near St. Pauls cathedral at the time but I didn't know the City had its own police. (I live in Bristol and was in London on a 5 day holiday). If you had said why you removed the pic I would have been saved the frustration of reverting an apparently meaningless pic move.:-) Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 13:13, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi. To reply with an equally friendly point, please check the page history. I wasn't the person who originally removed the picture without leaving an explanation - that was User:Hammersfan. When I removed it the second time I did leave an explanation, as I always do. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 13:54, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm very sorry for my stupid mistake. Please accept my apologies - Adrian Pingstone 14:51, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No problem. It annoys me too if one of my contributions is removed without an explanation. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 14:59, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Militsiya

Hi there! I noticed that you've just recategorized Militsiya from Category:Law enforcement into Category:Law enforcement in Russia. Just wanted to let you know that Ukraine also has militsiya, so the recategorization was incorrect. I'm not into categories that much myself, so I'll let you decide what to do with this helpful bit of information and how to fix it :)—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 22:16, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Russia/Soviet Unions/former Soviet Union is quite difficult to categorise because it has existed in three forms in the last century. I think the term does belong in Law enforcement in Russia, but I'll add it back into the general category as well. Is the name not transliterated differently in the other languages or is it 'Militsiya' in all of them? -- Necrothesp 22:23, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't know about other languages, but both Russian and Ukrainian words are transliterated the same—militsiya. Thanks for taking care of this.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 22:26, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Police division overcapitalization?

Hi there, Necrothesp! Thanks for your recent addition, Police division. It reads beautifully :-) One thing I'm curious about is the reason you chose to capitalize words like Division and Superintendent. It didn't seem they were used as proper nouns, so I changed them to lowercase. If I'm wrong, please let me know why and by all means, feel free to revert my changes :-) Best wishes, David Iberri | Talk 19:29, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Well, I'm partly with you. However, it does seem to be a bit of a convention, both here and in the news, to capitalise ranks and unit types, so I was just following convention. I've written several military articles without these things capitalised and had other people come along and capitalise them, so I thought I'd just forestall them. Ironically, you've just done the opposite. I think it's just a no-win situation :) I thought about it myself though. In fact, I originally wrote the article with them uncapitalised. -- Necrothesp 12:39, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ironic indeed :-) This situation sounds similar to the age-old American English vs. British English debate; there's really no right or wrong, per se, as long as we maintain consistency within a given article. I've no preference myself, so do with it what you will :-) --David Iberri | Talk 21:00, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Økokrim and Ierapetra

Hello User:Necrothesp! Thanks for correcting my grammar on the Økokrim article. It sure reads much better know. English isn't my native language, so my vocabulary and grammar are a little poor. If you feel like it, could you please do me a favour and have a look at Ierapetra too? I wrote the article a few weeks ago. Yes, I know, it is just another minor town in Greece, but for that very same reason it will take ages before it gets its much needed peer check. Thanks in advance! Paul 18:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Done. Nothing really wrong with it. Good article. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 14:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked through the changes you made, I think eighty precent of the mistakes are Dutchisms (e.g. 'southcoast' instead of 'south coast', or 'lokal' instead of 'local'). I'll pay them extra attention when I write my next article. Paul 07:47, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Police

(1)AFAIK "law enforcement" does not equal to "police", at least if you look inside the categories. And yes, I'll try to recategorize (with possible help), unless someone proves me that police is the same as law enforcement. But since you raised doubt, I am stopping this, to listen to other opinions. Mikkalai 00:11, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(2) You spoke convincingly. But the term "Police" looks so tempting and I may be not the last one who would want to introduce this category. I would suggest to write a good charter for Category:law enforcement. Still, the category asks for splitting. For example, there are some items that look definitely non-police. Mikkalai 16:27, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NATO rank codes on tables

I note your comment >>there is no way that a US corporal is equal to a British corporal, who does the job of a US sergeant or even staff sergeant, yet NATO puts them on the same level).<< I would entirely agree. My sources do show rank tables with British Corporals as an OF-4 rank but they also make a footer note that Britihs Corporals often fulfil a OF-5 role. (Sergeants are shown as OF 5/6) I would consider the best way to show this on tables would be to have the cell for Corporals and Sergeants being devided in the middle of the OF-5 rank, but I don't know how to do this in WIKI (put two cells symetically in line with two in an ajoining column or row). It might work be doing one big cell for both and inputting a line where required but if you can think of a neater way then, I would be grateful of your assitance on the relevant pages. Dainamo 02:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Syrup

Hi. I propose that a vote be held on Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board regarding the inclusion/exclusion of "syrup" IVoteTurkey 10:59, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Fine by me. But I do think this is all a bit of an overreraction to the inclusion of one word, particularly since there are already plenty of slang expressions on the list. -- Necrothesp 11:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do, that is why I said it was a stupid argument. But I really do think it is wrong to include it because it gives the false impression that it is wideley used in everyday speech and you disagree with that. Obviously aguing about it isn't going to solve the disagreement, so a poll seems like a sensible option. IVoteTurkey 15:37, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank's

Thank's for correction of my terrible English in Poznan cathedral :) Radomil 13:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No problem. It wasn't terrible, it just needed cleanup. I wouldn't even be able to start writing an article in Polish ;) -- Necrothesp 13:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

period

An American will say something like "You are grounded, period". (indicating the end of the sentence, and no more discussion on the matter) But it has no such meaning in British English. We might use "full-stop" when saying something similar. When people in Britain use 'period' in this way they are merely parroting what has been heard on American TV, whether it be first hand or second hand or whatever. The article is about the differences between British English and American English, not what expressions people pick up from American TV. In Britain we do not have "lootenants"; you cannot be charged with "Murder One"; we do not talk "long distance" on the phone; you cannot get picked up by the 'Feds'; or call "911" (altough I bet BT have probably made this equaivalent to 999 now) but you sometimes hear children say these things because they have picked it up from TV. I doubt that many of the people who use period in this way are even aware of the fact that 'period' means full-stop in the US. I said stupid, I should have said ignorant. Jooler 09:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah... so you are saying that you use "period" for emphasis. I was not intending to imply that you were ignorant or stupid. If 'period' was once used in this way in Britain it is irrelevant, otherwise we would be listing "labor" etc.. as British usage on that page. The transatlantic seepage of this expression is without doubt derived from apeing characters on US TV. It is not British English usage. Jooler

No, what I'm saying is that "period" is still used in the UK for emphasis, but that its usage in this way is a residual usage left over from when we did use "period" for "full stop". It's not "transatlantic seepage", but is a usage that has never left us. -- Necrothesp 11:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And your evidence for this assertion is the lack of clarification of it being an "Americanism" in the OED? Not good enough. Jooler 13:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Seems rather better than your evidence of "I, one of 60 million people in the UK, have never heard it"! At least I've produced some evidence - from the accepted bible of British English no less. Would you care to do the same? Are you claiming that "period" was never used for "full stop" in Britain (there is ample evidence that it was)? If you accept that, then I fail to see why you deny its other usage. -- Necrothesp 14:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary is not a British English Dictionary. Jooler 16:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Clutching at straws, aren't we. -- Necrothesp 16:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No I'm correcting what you said. You said it was the "bible of British English". The OED covers all forms of English, for British English try Chambers. Jooler 17:24, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pedantry instead of answers is usually a sign of clutching at straws. Since Americans regard Websters, not the OED, as their English bible, the OED effectively functions as ours. Chambers pales in comparison. -- Necrothesp 14:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's not pedantry. The OED covers all forms of English and is not prescriptive on usage. Check it out for yourself. Chambers on the other hand is specifically a British English dictionary, and as such is the preferred dictionary when playing Scrabble in Britain. Jooler 18:06, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Leaping to the defence of Chambers here, it is not at all pale in comparison to OED, in my opinion, Chambers is a much better written and presented reference source. Having said that, Chambers also dscribes "period" as a colloquial assertion of finality (paraphrase as I've put it back on the shelf now). It only describes the punctuation mark as being "especially US". Interestingly Websters (looking at the three volume version I have here) lists full stop as an alternate to "period" making no reference to British use in particular (which it does in other areas) there is also a third alternative to period and full stop, but that's all I have to say on it full point Dainamo 11:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I apologise to Chambers fans - I just happen to prefer the OED, which frequently seems to be slagged off on Wikipedia for some reason. I've seen it called irrelevant and out of date several times, usually when it doesn't agree with the opinion of the writer in question. I've also seen people claim that something in the OED is irrelevant and then happily quote from Websters to support their pet semantic theory. Ah well. Nice to see Chambers doesn't say "period" is specifically American though. Monitoring myself, I've used the term several times since this debate, and not once have I sworn at myself for using an Americanism, since it seems to me to be a perfectly natural British English expression (it usually grates on me if I unintentionally use an Americanism - when I occasionally come out with "guys" without thinking about it, for example - which is why I get irritated when people accuse me of using them). Period. -- Necrothesp 12:04, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To cap this debate off, thank goodness that when quoting stuff on the Internet we don't have to say "www period wikipedia period com" Jooler 17:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if reasoning by a non-native speaker might help, but for a long time I thought period was a strictly North American thing, because I haven't seen it being used in British movies/TV. I checked Cambridge Dictionary. This is what it defines:

Definition

period (MARK) [Show phonetics]

noun [C]

1 MAINLY US FOR full stop

2 MAINLY US said at the end of a statement to show that you believe you have said all there is to say on a subject and you are not going to discuss it any more:

There will be no more shouting, period!

(from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)

I find it a little surprising that a word will be used as an exclamation if that word in itself is not used as a punctuation. Period in North American English makes sense because period is what a full stop is called there. In British English a full stop is a full stop and rarely a period. So why would the exclamation be period? Is my reasoning flawed?

-- Urnonav 08:21, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The flaw is in the fact that, while "period" is no longer used for "full stop" in common British English, it was once used as such (back to the 16th century at least) and can still be so used in a technical sense. Very few English words were invented by the Americans - most American usages are old British usages that never changed as they did in Britain. It is perfectly feasible for one usage of a word to remain in British English, but another similar usage to have died out. -- Necrothesp 16:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Calcutta

You seem to be leading the charge in this debate. Might I suggest you contact the people who voted for the current policy on Wikipedia:Naming policy poll and ask them to vote again on this specific issue. Nohat 19:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Police prerogative

In Police: We would probably need more on the topic of what police officers can and cannot do. There are entire chapters of the French Code of penal procedure that define what OPJs can and cannot do in which circumstance; the exact procedure also depends on whether they are acting in a "flagrancy" enquiry (i.e. a crime has been committed in front of a police officer or in front of a crowd of witnesses, etc.), in a preliminary enquiry (some suspicions exist that a crime has been committed, but it's still unsure) or a criminal information (a crime has very probably been committed and a judge has been named to supervise the case). So I kinda give up, we'd need some legal expert.

This is especially compounded by the tendency of the past 15 years of changing criminal procedure every so often: one time, it is argued that it favors criminals by putting enormous burdens on justice, one time, it is argued that it does not protect the innocent well enough.

While I think that in most Western-like democracies, one would expect that procedures such as searches and wiretaps are heavily constrained, I cannot vouch for all countries. In any case, I think we'd need some comparative studies. Maybe include some authoritarian country? David.Monniaux 19:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's so varied throughout the world that it would be a nightmare to do without legal experts, as you say. In Britain, for example, every police officer has exactly the same powers, whether he be a brand new probationary constable, a part-time volunteer special constable, a detective, or the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. Every officer is a direct servant of the Crown and derives his powers from his office of constable, not from his rank or position in the police. This seems to be relatively rare, though. I was very surprised when I first read years ago about the constraints on the powers of ordinary patrol officers in France, but that's probably actually more common than the British model. As you mention, in many countries a judge or prosecutor also supervises criminal investigations, which is again not the case in Britain (but is in the United States). Probably best to handle this on individual pages for each country's law enforcement - there aren't that many at the moment. -- Necrothesp 20:20, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

MVD article

Thanks for feeding my text with proper articles. Seems like I'm used to 'web forum English' too much and US people I meet there are mostly reluctant to use articles. There's a possibility I'm just not paying enough attention (politically correct form of being lazy) to do it... (Rats, I haven't used a single article, again. Shame on me.) DmitryKo 20:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) P.S. Can you recommend any 'Definite and indefinite articles for Dummies' guide?

SAS

THE SAS artilce was completely innacurate and it needed to be rewriten, im sorry but you are wrong - b1link82

YOU SAID:

So, you take a perfectly good article and "rewrite" it in bad English and with bad organisation, removing any reference to 21 and 23 SAS (who are as much SAS as 22, incidentally). If you think things are inaccurate then change them individually, but do not seek to change the focus of the whole article (the title of which is, incidentally, "Special Air Service" and not "22 SAS"). Also do not make ridiculous statements like "The 2 other SAS regiments are TA regiments and are not regular troops who have passed the rigourous SAS selection. The other 2 regiments are not considered to be part of the SAS" (that would be why they're not called SAS, presumably - oh look, they are!) or POV statements like "Air Troop is one of the most dangerous jobs in all of the military". This is an encyclopaedia, not a fan site for the SAS, and this is not the way we do things.

I SAY

Yes I did, my english is not brilliant but I try my hardest, not everyone is obviously as intelligent as you. I have decided to create a 22 SAS page if you don't like it but 21 AND 23 SAS have not passed selection and I know a lot more about ther SAS then you ever could. You are wrong and I will edit the article accorindgly, allowing pages for 21 and 23 SAS to be made. Please show some snse.

Sorry I got the wrong page before. I am no way an SAS wannabee i'm not good enough to get into the paras let alone the SAS. I don't want to join as I can make more money through business and property. However I do have an interest in the SAS and know my stuff - kinda like my specialist subject. How does this make it a 'fan site' there are plently of them and they are crap, this is an information and statistical site being an encyclopedia and thereofre need facts and not opinions. I am happy with the article, please do not revert it without further consultation between me and other peopel who have an opinon.

21 and 23 SAS are not part of the SAS as if they want to join 22SAS they need to do selection.

User:B1link82

B1link82 has been temporarily blocked for edit warring/3RR on Special Air Service by Slowking Man, I suggest you use this opportunity to clean it up and NPOV it as soon as possible.  ALKIVAR™ 23:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User is now up for RfC, feel free to go make your side heard. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/B1link82  ALKIVAR™ 19:50, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zurich

Zürich has been nominated on Wikipedia:Requested moves for a page move to Zurich. Perhapse you might like to express your opinion about this proposed move on talk:Zürich. Philip Baird Shearer 09:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration requested against User:B1link82

I have requested arbitration against User:B1link82 for his recent vandalism and personal attacks. I am notifying you since you certified his RFC. I included you as an involved party in the arbitration request. Evidence would be welcome, because I'm pretty busy this weekend and I won't have a ton of time. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:B1link82. Thank you. Rhobite 17:11, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Removal of much content from 'launceston' article

Could you please give me a clearer reason why you have deleted a large amount of information from the Launceston, Cornwall, England article?

I cannot accept your reasoning as 'This is not a business directory'. The paragraphs give information on the towns commerical infrastructure as well as plans for the future. Many, many similar articles have similar content which other users have had no trouble with.

I will not reintroduce the information as of yet.

--84.67.63.166 19:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What I deleted was a list of shops, most of which appear in any town in Britain and which are simply not encyclopaedic. I have not noticed any other town articles which list shops, but if you'd care to give me some links... -- Necrothesp 22:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe it gives a good depth to the article, though I agree it is slightly over-the-top. Can you suggest anything which could be reinstated without the article becoming 'A business directory'? --Benbread 17:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with an outline of the town's expansion (it's my hometown, by the way, although I don't currently live there). But I don't think details of the names of the businesses or even the trading estates are necessary. These will only be of interest to someone wishing to shop in Launceston or move their business there, and that's not what Wikipedia is here for. -- Necrothesp 21:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

English Colonel-Generals

Thanks for correcting and expanding this section. Do you know how colonel-general ranked in relation to the other types of general (e.g. above/below sgt-maj-gen, etc.)? You say that it often seems to indicate a senior colonel rather than a senior general: this suggests a certain similarity to brigadier general - i.e. a colonel temporarily placed in command of more than one regiment/battalion. However, a number of the titles (Colonel-General of Cheshire, etc.) have clear territorial associations, suggesting regional commanders or even military governors. Any thoughts? Or is all this meaningless speculation, given that the King (and Parliament) could make up military titles up on the spot if they wanted? (And did the New Model Army have any colonel-generals?) Franey 14:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From the entries in the Dictionary of National Biography, it would seem to have been a very variable title. In some cases it seems to denote an officer in command of an army, in others the equivalent of a brigade commander, in others the commander in a particular county or group of counties (as you say, often a military governor). I suspect it was a title used very variably without any fixed place in the hierarchy. -- Necrothesp 14:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Requested moves(WP:RM)

Votes for moving pages now takes place on the talk page of the page to be moved. So I have moved your vote to Talk:Military of the United Kingdom. Please check that I have not made a mistake in the copying Philip Baird Shearer 21:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Second Permanent Secretaries

Here is the transcript of the email he sent me. Click here if you want to contact him yourself.

There are 25 Permanent Secretaries in charge of Departments and there is a total of 15 Second Permanent Secretaries in Dept of Work and Pensions, the Cabinet Office, Dept of Health, the Treasury, the Home Office, Dept of Trade and Industry, Dept for Consitutional Affairs and Ministry of Defence. They are mostly responsible for large areas of service delivery to the public.

Bill Boulter

See Talk:Permanent Secretary. I think that's the source of the conflict. There may be forty people with those grades, but not with the title (just look at the websites if you don't believe me). There are people in senior positions who are probably paid the same, but are not actually called PS or SPS - and that's what the article is about. So far, you have been unaccountably deleting info on Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and adding departments you say (without any evidence) have Permanent Secretaries, which is disproved by a look at their websites. Only add info you can actually substantiate. -- Necrothesp 10:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Of the non-ministerial departments only Parliamentary Counsel, Treasury Solicitor, Revenue and Customs, UK Trade and Investment, Office for National Statistics and the three Security Services are headed by Permanent Secretaries. The others are headed by people at SCS Band 2 or 3, depending on their size and complexity.

The above email accounts for the other departments. I hope you're satisfied.

They are headed by people at Permanent Secretary level, not actually by Permanent Secretaries. Check out their websites. Specifically, the PCO is headed by the First Parliamentary Counsel and the Chief Executive, the TSD by the Treasury Solicitor, HMRC by the Executive Chairman, UKTI by the Chief Executive, the ONS by the National Statistician, MI5 by the Director-General, MI6 by the Chief, and GCHQ by the Director. None of these have the title of Permanent Secretary. -- Necrothesp 14:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I have now incorporated this information into the article. Please stop just reverting it from now on. -- Necrothesp 15:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

And the second permanent secretaries or the "people at that level"? That there are 15 of in 8 departments? That each department, according to you, has only one each of? A quick check shows that 8 x 1 makes 8, not 15. Do look at both links - you obviously need to.

Once again, try thinking laterally without trying to be snide. People at SPS level do not all need to be called SPSs. Check the websites. They give the job titles. Only one person in each of those departments is actually called an SPS - they are specified (except in the DTI as I previously stated, but I doubt that all the additional SPSs are in that department). Since we do not know, without further information, which other officials are at this level it's best to leave it until we do, otherwise the information in the article will likely be false. -- Necrothesp 23:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Whatever you think, I am still inclined to think that people with jobs in the Cabinet Office wouldn't lie about things that can be checked up by asking any of his/her colleagues. So, as this is a wiki, I will keep reverting it, since I have a source for the info. If you wish to dispute this further, paste every web link saying to the contrary below, and I will check them myself. By the way: have you learnt maths yet?

He's not lying. He answered the question you asked. He just wasn't particularly specific. I have no need to post every web link - they're freely available. Check them for yourself. My information is detailed and specific, and I have done you the courtesy of incorporating the relevant parts of what you said. Yours is general and you apparently don't think anyone can disagree with you. And if you continue to revert I shall report you and you will be blocked. Very simple. It may be a wiki, but that doesn't mean it has no rules. Have fun. -- Necrothesp 08:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

You can't block someone for putting info they know to be true (and who have a source for it), and anyway, I not only use lots of IP addresses, but I have software that enables me to change at the click of my mouse. So there.

So you're intent on sabotaging Wikipedia because people disagree with you. Very grown up. I suggest getting a life. I'm mystified as why you would want to revert a version of an article that includes all the information you have yourself provided to a version that omits large amounts of information (such as that on Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales) and is inaccurate (since it claims that the title of Permanent Secretary is held by people who do not in fact hold it). Sounds to me like pure petulance that someone has dared to change something you wrote. And that, I'm afraid, is against the policy of Wikipedia. I suggest you read the disclaimer at the bottom of every page: "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." I also suggest registering as a user if you want to be taken seriously. -- Necrothesp 12:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

1. Anons have equal status to registered users.
2. The disclaimer applies to you as well.
3. You can't block me: why bother?

1. Equal status, yes. But not registering combined with your boast that you can change your IPA at the drop of a hat suggests that you don't want to be taken seriously and just want to undermine Wikipedia. You should also sign your posts on talk pages, incidentally.
2. Of course the disclaimer applies to me as well. And I don't object when people add to my articles or change things that are wrong. I do object when people revert because they don't like their (incorrect) information being changed and delete perfectly valid information without good reason.
3. What a grown up thing to say! Well done! -- Necrothesp 16:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

You're patronising - I "undermine". Fair's fair. And I'm not kidding - I can change my "IPA".

You know, I really don't care. -- Necrothesp 09:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Domestic killings are not noteworthy?

You wrote:

Any murder is noteworthy unless it's a purely domestic killing.

Why would domesticity make a murder any less noteworthy? In some circumstances such murders are more noteworthy than others because they are indicative of popular attitudes concerning domestic abuse. Michael Hardy 22:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Simply because most domestic murders are fairly uninteresting. You won't find them in many books about murder either. Some are extremely noteworthy, obviously ("In some circumstances", as you yourself say), but most are sadly routine. -- Necrothesp 23:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

But why isn't the same true of non-domestic murders? You said "Any murder ... unless ...". Michael Hardy 00:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Having studied murder in a fair amount of detail, most domestic murders are committed on the spur of the moment. A husband, wife, boyfriend, girlfriend or parent lashes out. Somebody dies. Regrettable, but not particularly noteworthy unless made more so by other factors. Some non-domestic murders are indeed like this, but far, far fewer, since most involve criminality (apart from the murder itself) or psychological factors. This makes them more interesting and 'encycopaedic'. An opinion obviously shared by crime writers. -- Necrothesp 12:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Six Counties/Northern Ireland

I noticed your revert on Royal Irish Constabulary, we're currently discussing this issue at Talk:Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of Ireland. Feel free to contribute your opinion.

Demiurge 11:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:42, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Category:UK Wikipedians

Hi, just to let you know that the list of UK participants at the UK notice board was getting rather long, so I have replaced it with the above category which I have added to your user page. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 30 June 2005 20:26 (UTC)

Red Arrows

Sorry about that, was a misunderstanding, some how i never noticed some things were dupicated. good job, thanks Bluemoose 4 July 2005 07:28 (UTC)

No problem. You often don't notice things like that if you're actually writing the article. -- Necrothesp 4 July 2005 12:31 (UTC)

Faculty

Hi. You've made me wonder if faculty is never understood with its US meaning in the UK. It may be a regional thing, or specific to particular universities, but the following examples suggest that faculty is understood as well as used in the UK with its US meaning.

See:

http://www.bisa.ac.uk/bisanews/0102/Sussex.htm

http://www.sussex.ac.uk/psychology/1-5.html

http://www.som.cranfield.ac.uk/som/research/centres/ilc/team.asp

http://www.transcomm.ox.ac.uk/wwwroot/sasg.htm

http://www.thestudentzone.com/universities/unihome.html?/universities/sussex.asp

I'd suggest that it's not inaccurate to include faculty as having its US meaning of "academic staff" in the UK in addition to the meaning of a university department. What do you think? Adrian Robson 4 July 2005 15:10 (UTC)

I think it's interesting that four of those examples come from the same university. I have to say that in considerable experience of British universities, I have never heard the term "faculty" being used to refer to staff. I understand the term used in this way, but only through seeing American usage. The OED says it is, in this context, "The whole teaching staff of a college, university, or school. orig. and chiefly U.S." -- Necrothesp 4 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)

Here are some more:

http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/che/modelling.htm

http://www.jims.cam.ac.uk/people/faculty/faculty_f.html

http://www.cpt.dur.ac.uk/qcdnet/Teams/durham.html

http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/psych/www/people/faculty.shtml

and here's an interesting one where both meanings are used on the same page:

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/portal/page?_pageid=58,310399&_dad=portallive&_schema=PORTALLIVE

However, I'm beginning to have doubts about what is meant by "(+US meaning)" or (+UK meaning) in the table. Maybe you can clarify what's intended. I thought the heading meant that an entry represented "the more common British (or American) meaning" and that if a meaning from the other column was also in usage (though less frequently) the note "(+US meaning)" would be added. (So I added "(+US meaning)" for faculty as it's also used in the UK, though far less frequently than the more common use.) However, looking at some of the other entries, I'm beginning to wonder. Surely Ace usually means the "one" in a suit of cards - the same as for the US entry. For this entry, "(+ US meanings)" surely shouldn't mean the US meanings are as commonly used as the top entry. Or does it? If it does, it seems to make the entry pointless if both countries have the same "most common meaning".

What do you think "(+US meaning)" or "(+UK meaning)" are meant to convey - an equally common meaning, or a meaning which is also used but less commonly? Adrian Robson 4 July 2005 19:21 (UTC)

Basically, all meanings are listed equally, with a note if it's rare. The +US or +UK bit doesn't imply less common usage. It's usually employed if a word has one meaning in one country, and several meanings (including that one) in the other. It just avoids listing all meanings in both columns. -- Necrothesp 5 July 2005 11:42 (UTC)

Egypt Mushir

Thanks for pointing out that the rank had been held in Egypt. I was actually not aware of that. Could you post some names of the holders? It would help expand the Mushir article. Thanks! -Husnock 13:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

UKSF

Can you take a look at this please, it doesn;t make any sense to me (see talk:UKSF) but I know little of these things. Jooler 13:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Regimental Sergeant Major

Hi, thanks for the note. Changing the title was just making it conform to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Titles a little better, which I did not think required discussion. As for consistency, yes it would be nice, but I don't have time to move all the pages. The best I can do is move one every now and then as I come across them, and hope others pitch in. I know a lot of people think that if a title or appointment is Very Important, it needs capitals, but there is no professional style guide I know of that recommends this. Since "regimental sergeant major" is correctly written without caps in some contexts, that's how the article should be titled. If people get upset, or revert the move, that's fine: I have other things I'm more interested in working on, and I don't plan to lodge any objections. Indefatigable 21:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

marine team 6

hey you seem like an enlightened fellow i was wondering if your have heard of or could research an elite u.s. marine corps unit called marine team 6(six) they are mentioned in george fortys book the vital guide to special forces under the marine force recon section thanks again

Don't edit something you know nothing about

You live in England. I live in the United States. Before you edit something you know nothing about, you should do some research.

UDPD is the finest LEO in Montgomery County due to several FACTS, not opinions. Our department is the only department in Montgomery County that owns a LiveScan system. In addition, our department only interviews the top five candidates who score the highest on the combined MCC test. Lastly, our department requires you have at least 60 college credits before you can even consider applying, which makes it the hardest department to get into for the entire county.

This does not mean that it is the finest police department in Montgomery County. This is a POV statement and will be reverted. -- Necrothesp 12:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Well when everyday you come into work and your life is on the line for these people, you tend to want to think you are the best at what you do. And thankfully, we are.

I'm sure the employees of every police organisation in the world think their organisation is the best. That's why we must remain neutral when writing for an encyclopaedia. I used to serve in the British Army. I naturally think it's the best in the world. I think there's even plenty of evidence for that. But it's not appropriate for me to say so in a Wikipedia article, because that's my point of view, not a fact. -- Necrothesp 17:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Honorary British Knights

Thank you very much for you additions to the List of honorary British Knights --I've never had enough patience to put all that medieval knights there. BTW, isn't the 'Royalty' section too big in comparison to the other? Maybe it's sensible to split it off and make a separate article? And, incidentally, don't you know the answer to my question on Talk:Order of the Thistle? Mapple 18:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Between us we do seem to have made the section rather long. I agree that it should maybe be split off into a separate article. I'm afraid I don't know the answer to your question about the Thistle. Where do you get your information from incidentally? It's very comprehensive. -- Necrothesp 18:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll think how to call a possible future article... because it is sensible to include, for example, the Royal Victorian Chain in the article concerned with royalty only. As for my information -- I gather it mostly from the Royal Ark website-- http://www.4dw.net/royalark/index.html . Mapple 19:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I thought you might. I use that as well. -- Necrothesp 19:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

TAs

Hello. Out of interest, which British universities explicitly refer to members of staff as Teaching Assistants? The JPS 19:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I know KCL does. I applied for a teaching assistantship there once. Some departments at Warwick do; others call them part-time tutors or temporary lecturers. It varies a lot from what I can tell, but the term is definitely used in the UK. -- Necrothesp 19:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Just interested, that's all. I'd never come across the term TA before in British higher ed, for political reasons, more than anything. As a Visiting Lecturer, I felt that the current description of TAs in the US (with the exception about the bit about undergrads taking classses) most closely fit in with what I actually do. Ho hum. The JPS 19:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Yo

Royce Farr is an absolute legend - do you know him?

I know of him. I've never met him. Where is he a legend? -- Necrothesp 09:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Among all students who have had...ahem...brushes with him. :) Got respect for the guy, he's old school - firm but fair.

Wikiproject British Army

I've just created Wikipedia:Wikiproject British Army and was wondering if you'd like to join it. It needs experienced hands to get the whole thing going.

I kinda figured that a central resource to organise and co-ordinate stuff related to the British Army would be a good thing. What do you think?

Take care SoLando 21:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for that, did you change it back on all the Argentine Intelligence articles? if not, I'll do it. I am new to Wikipedia.

Thank you

Thanks so much for fixing category:law enforcement in Macau. I am in fact a bit confused why an edit to Macau Security Force [1] would have led to the edit warring to put this category and category:law enforcement in Hong Kong under a currently mainland China-specific category, and, later, if Hong Kong and Macau are countries. — Instantnood 11:30, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

No problem. As you've pointed out, Macau and Hong Kong are not sovereign states, but they are countries, just as Gibraltar, Puerto Rico or the Isle of Man, for instance, are countries. To say that current and former territories and colonies with their own identities are not countries is ridiculous. -- Necrothesp 12:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

In fact user:Huaiwei and user:SchmuckyTheCat has been editing many Hong Kong- and Macao-related categories and articles for they argue the two territories are not countries. — Instantnood 13:30, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Re: your rv of my change to Royal Logistic Corps

• The Royal Engineers page says:

"In 1908, the Army Postal Corps (formed in 1882) and the Royal Engineers Telegraph Reserve (formed in 1884) amalgamated to form the Royal Engineers Postal Section. This later became the Army Postal and Courier Service and remained part of the RE until the formation of the Royal Logistic Corps in 1993."

This seems to suggest that the Army Postal (or Post Office) Corps became part of the Logistic Corps. As far as I can tell, the Army Postal Corps is another name or incarnation of the Post Office Rifles (it is certainly mentioned in the Rifles article) and, as such, if it is true that the Army Postal Corps joined Logistic Corps, then my edit was correct. If it is not true that they joined the Logistic Corps at all, would a change to the Royal Engineers page make this clearer?

Maybe if they are a part of the Logistic Corps but are not what was meant by the words I edited, they could be given a mention? Ben davison 20:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

So, should mention of the APC be removed from the Post Office Rifles article if they were entirely different? Ben davison 21:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

"I think mention of the APC should be mentioned from the Post Office Rifles article, yes." -- Necrothesp 21:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Either they can be mentioned in or deleted from. Bit confusing. ;) Ben davison 21:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll get right on it, sir! Ben davison 21:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Dame, etc

I won't nit-pick further, but I believe, after review, that E. Charles has the first prenominal title of 2005 at Recent Deaths, with the exception of the Pope, Rainier of Monaco, and Fahd of Saudi Arabia. I do think my objection was well-founded, and I expect some standardizing crew will eliminate the title eventually, but I won't bother further. In part, this is because I like your username. ;) Xoloz 14:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see... in those cases, the prenominal is part of link and hence, didn't leap out at me as I scanned the list. Incidentally, since you would probably know, is it "Knight Commander of the British Empire" or "Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire," or is either acceptable? Also, it shouldn't be a particular surprise to you that many Americans dislike and are relatively unfamiliar with (and, consequently, less formal in their use of) titles of nobility. That said, personally, I'd pledge myself to HM the Queen in an instant if it would mean the disposal of G. W. Bush. Thanks, Xoloz 14:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Country = sovereign state?

Hello Necrothesp. Something like the conflict with category:law enforcement in Macau (edit history) has continued. User:Huaiwei has created category:political entities, and moved many categories previously grouped under category:countries, such as dependent territories, to populate this new category. I've listed this new category to WP:CFD, citing the WP:POINT policy. Please take a look at the discussion there and express your opinion. Thanks. — Instantnood 18:02, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks. :-D — Instantnood 19:54, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Edmund Henderson

Thanks for your work on Edmund Henderson. This is a good example of what makes Wikipedia so great — I provide the Western Australian perspective, but leave gaping holes in the rest of his career; you fill in those gaps; and between us we end up creating possibly the most complete biography of Henderson available anywhere! Snottygobble | Talk 01:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Try To Stay On Topic

This is not about the information being accurate. Which it isn't. It is about this entry be used to post the names of my friends so they can be attacked. Please pay attention and quit wandering off topic.

Ashida Kim

Which is no reason to delete the whole article, which IS the topic under discussion. There are currently no names of your friends in the article. If you ranted and rambled less and listened more then perhaps people would show more sympathy. What is inaccurate about the information presented? -- Necrothesp 21:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Michael Staines

Re. cat deletion - I did that during a lazy copy/paste. My bad - sorry (and thanks for fixing it!) - Ali-oops^✍ 12:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Prom

Hello. I noticed that you reverted my recent edit in the 'prom' section of the List of words having different meanings in British and American English page. It's the first time I've edited that page so perhaps I've misunderstood or done something wrong, so please excuse me if that's the case, but I'm a little confused. While I accept that it might not be the main meaning of the word prom here in the UK, I added "+ US meaning" to the 'prom' section because it is used and understood in that context here in the UK. However, you reverted it on the grounds of it being a "pure Americanism". Americanism it may be, but its usage in that context is still understood and used here in the UK. Certainly, we had a prom at my school and we all knew what it meant, and that was five years ago! They'd been having proms at that school since at least 1990 as far as I'm aware, and I'm certain many, if not most, schools in the UK have them these days, so I dont see what's wrong with adding the "+ US meaning". Anyway, rather than become involved in some sort of edit war, I thought I'd raise the issue here and on the article's talk page to see what you and others think. Angmering 00:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Promsan

I'm posting this reply on your talk page because I don't know if you are going to go back to mine to look.

• 1. I agree the wording is not perfect and it will be changed, but is does conform to Wikipedia policy:

Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages

If you are unsure how others will view your contributions, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to either:

Copy it to the Talk page and list your objections there (if the material in question is a sentence or so in length)

List your objections on the Talk page, but leave the main article as is (if the material is substantially longer than a sentence)

Then, wait a bit for responses. If no one objects, proceed, but always move large deletions to the Talk page and list your objections to the text so that other people will understand your changes and will be able to follow the history of the page. Also be sure to leave a descriptive edit summary detailing your change and reasoning.

So the accusation that: You have no right to post your opinion in this way and no right to delete edits if they don't agree with a non-standard process that you have imposed Is not supported by Wikipedia policy. I have not seen it written that nobody has the "right" to state Wikipedia policy on an article; nor is this a non-standard process, it is in fact there in black and white on a Wikipedia policy page. Nonetheless, I will change it - that whole article is in the process of being constructed.

• 2. I also find your response interesting, in view of the fact that it is remarkably similar to the behaviour exhibited by self-appointed "administrators" on the pages you and I have been discussing. That does not mean I am accusing you of the same thing, because you've been pretty good about explaining your actions - though not all the time.

• 3.I also resent this tiresome "we" this and "we" that rubbish, it is not endearing, neither is being treated like a newbie - I've actually had a username on Wikipedia before this current username I've got, but it's not a competition, but I've forgotten it, it was that long ago.

If you do regard me as a newcomer, then try reading this page Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers.

• 4.The reason I've put a message like that is not to claim ownership of the article, but as a protest to the behaviour of some users some times on the pages that you and I have been in discussion.

I don't wish to engage in an edit war, but I do wish to create a page that some Users have stated they want, which has been resisted by some Users such as yourself. Likewise, you are perfectly entitled to have articles that deal with specific things, but you also do not have the right to impose your views on others. I am currently in discussion with User:smjg about possible proposals for changes - your comments will be valued. There are flaws with the pages as discussed, which, if not resolved make the current lists of American and British English suitable candidates for challenging, and getting some outside input.

There are Users who want a different kind of article to the ones that exist, and it is for them as well as me that I have started to try and build a consolidated page with clear criteria for what goes where and why. I accept your criticism about the tone of the wording, and i've changed it. I want to adhere strictly to Wikipedia policy, and I feel there's a need to state that clearly on the article due to the issues mentioned.

"Tiresome" is your word, thanks. Yes, all Wikipedia entries should be discussed, you're right, it's a guideline, and I correct myself - insert the word "contentious" in front of "Wikipedia entries", and I think must.. is the best way to go.

...editing the list to meet their own agenda and objects when others re-edit to meet the criteria that have been established not by any one individual but by general consensus and usage over time.

I resent this remark insofar as the implication is that I am not editing based on good faith or on some basis of evidence. Consensus is not enough to compensate for inaccuracy. The whole article is flawed in my view, but I'm not interested in trying to correct yours; rather I am interested in creating a different type of article to the ones that exist, for which there is demand; and which is based on a supportable idea of what a word actually is, and which has clear criteria based on evidence - consensus is of little value if nobody can back up their views, or if the consensus is that views based on evidence are to be ignored.It takes one to know one 15:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Corneliusseon

I read the entire exchange you had with this user about cutting and pasting from outside sources. He just just did it again on Purple Heart. He means well, but bears watching. Looking at the user contributions page, there is plenty of damage that can be done by someone engaging in this kind of editing. And, juding by the tone of his talk page, he really doesn't seem too concerned. -Husnock 04:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated POV rants

Hardly. One is not much more than a list of links to newspaper articles, some of them British. Neither appear to me to deserve the label you give them, and I presume both give a lot more information than the official website, which isn't opening for me.

Lapsed Pacifist 17:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Both articles, as you very well know, are written from a biased anti-British point of view. Do you really think this is the place for such unbalanced opinion sites? Sadly, given many of your edits, I suspect you do! You have been told again and again that this is not the place for opinion, from any point of view, yet still you persist in adding it. -- Necrothesp 18:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't share your view of the balance of the opinions offered in those links (especially the first), but even so, neutrality is not an absolute requirement for a link. Do you believe the official site is neutral? (By the way, I still can't open it.) I have not added opinion of any kind to the Intelligence Corps article. I gave access to it.

Lapsed Pacifist 09:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course the official site is not entirely neutral - no official sites are - but it at least attempts to provide information, not opinion. What concrete information are those two sites providing? None. They're just putting forward somebody's very biased opinion by selective use of sources. -- Necrothesp 17:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

They provide valuable background, and surely alternate views are welcome. If the bias is obvious to you, what makes you think others will miss it?

Lapsed Pacifist 08:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

No they don't. They provide allegations, which is not the same thing as valuable background at all. I would also point out that these allegations relate to the Force Research Unit, so I'm not even entirely sure why you've added them to an article about Int Corps, whose main function is to provide battlefield intelligence. -- Necrothesp 11:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorted.

Lapsed Pacifist 12:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Neo Military

Hey there, i am thinking of writing an article which is to do with Neo Military fashion. Neo Military fashion being the term for the emergence of military uniforms being made fashionable amongst subcultures (especially rebellious or romantic archetypes). Although im struck with a blindingly silly problem, i don't know the proper terminology for the buttoned straps on the shoulders that form a 'hoop' and there is one on each shoulder, if you know what i mean. Aswell as what are the tiny hoops called which would other wise accomodate ammunition found vertically amongst the fastening-up buttons? Any other list of of military uniform components would be useful, thanks your expertise would be valueble. --Raddicks 15:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the straps on the shoulders are commonly called "shoulder straps" in the UK; the things carried on them that bear rank are called "rank slides", "shoulder slides" or "epaulettes". The ammunition holders are usually called "cartridge loops", I believe. -- Necrothesp 16:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Note

I noticed you put a suggestion for a merge on the page Palazzo Vecchio. If you want I'll take care of merging the two articles, and then put a redirect from Palazzo della Signoria to there.

Happy editing!

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ]
02:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Admin ready?

I have been reviewing your impressive contributions, and can think of no good reason not to nominate you for adminship pretty much right away. Are you interested?  BDAbramson ^talk 01:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I shouldn't intrude on this message, but I would just like to say that I agree with BDAbramson. I'd definitely support an admin nomination, assuming Necrothesp is interested. SoLando (Talk) 01:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It will be up for your acceptance in about 1/2 hour. :-D  BDAbramson ^talk 14:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Your nomination is now on the RfA page, where I predict, you will find that you have earned a smooth ride. Cheers!  BDAbramson ^talk 18:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

OM before OSB?

If that is so, then perhaps you want to correct this also in the article to which the name in the list links?
03:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Stratton Brothers case

Hi, Necrothesp! Thanks for your contribution to the article Stratton Brothers case, but I need to comment on your edit re Sir Edward Richard Henry in that article. Although he was indeed the AC (Crime) in 1901, according to this source, he was also the first head of the Metropolitan Police Fingerprint Bureau upon its establishment. RashBold 20:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

He established it as AC (Crime), but he joined the Met as AC (Crime), so he wouldn't have headed the bureau directly as well (according to this section, the Fingerprint Bureau was established a month after Henry became AC (Crime)). The Met, it has to be said, often seem unsure of the details of their own history. Quite frankly, I'm sorry to say, I would take anything historical on the Met's site with a very large pinch of salt. -- Necrothesp 01:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. I did not undo your changes on that, FYI and left it as it is. Further inputs on the article would be very much apppreciated. I am aiming to finish that ASAP, preferably before the week is out. In the meantime, you may want to check out the article on Harry Jackson which I wrote inside an hour which was hitherto a red link in the Stratton Brothers article. RashBold 00:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Bargello, Google aerial view

You restored the link to the Google map, stating that the Bargello is smack in the center of the view. So it is — but it's not labeled as such, so what's the person to get from it? Best, Bill 15:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It says on the link it's in the centre, so what's the problem? I happen to think satellite images give a good idea of where things are and what they look like. -- Necrothesp 16:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You're a sysop!

Hi, Necrothesp/Archive 14/Archive 1, Congratulations on Becoming a Sysop

Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, ban anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on Votes for deletion (provided there's a consensus) for more than one week, protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.

Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp «Talk»=

Please also add your name to WP:LA =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Congratulations!!! Your hard work here has earned you the ability to make an even greater contribution - I know you'll use the powers well. BDAbramson T 03:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks for the eloquent nomination. -- Necrothesp 10:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Congratulations Necrothesp! I also wanted to say thank you for improving your use of edit summaries. Since I made that comment on your RfA, your use of edit summaries has gone from 54% in the 500 prior to it to 78% over the 132 edits since I made that comment. Good work! Keep improving! --Durin 13:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Well deserved, congratulations! You now have claws instead of fingers. :-P --Raddicks 05:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Congrats on adminship Dlyons493 Talk 04:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Another Text Copier

Your comments would be very much appreciated on Talk:Kuwait Liberation Medal (Saudi Arabia). We have another character who is of the opinion that it is perfectly okay to rip entire pages of text off of the Institute of Heraldry and call that an original work. Thanks for your previous inputs on this matter as well. -Husnock 21:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Consistency with other WP articles...

... isn't actually part of the naming conventions. Shouldn't this article be at British Army Other Ranks insignia? Or perhaps British Army non-commissioned rank insignia? Alai 16:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it should. British Army Other Ranks rank insignia would be my preference. Repetition maybe, but ORs are a class of people, and they wear insignia other than that of rank. -- Necrothesp 16:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I originally created this page by adapting the title from U.S. Army enlisted rank insignia, but I appreciate "enlisted ranks" is a misnomer when referring to "other ranks" in the British forces. Perhaps a change should be proposed? Dainamo 12:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

SBS edit

Thanks. It does make sense now. I thought that could be one of the things the original author might have meant, but not being intimately familiar with the SBS/SAS selection process and the apparent interchangeability of the two, I wasn't sure. --Craig (t|c) 12:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Heinrich Himmler attacks

Good sir, your assistance in the monitoring of Heinrich Himmler would be very much appreicated. There is an anon IP address user who is adding vandalistic, POV, revisionist statements that Himmler was killed by a secret British death squad rather than dieing by suicide. The ip user proportes a controversial book by an unknown author and says that this has "replaced" the accepted version of Himmler's death. I gave way and did not fight mentioning of the book, but now the user is making heavy POV statements about the book and rewriting the article as if the World War II historians of the world have embraced this new "theroy" which is absolute nonsense. Your help and comments on the talk page would be more than welcome! Thank you!! -Husnock 04:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support. The anon user struck again after your post, but was quickly reverted. I hope the page doesnt end up having to be protected. Hmmm. -Husnock 22:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Wogan

How about this for a reference? Proteus (Talk) 17:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It says he was entitled to UK citizenship, not that he already had it. Just being born in Ireland before 1949 would not have made him automatically entitled to a substantive knighthood. That's what I changed. Incidentally, I'm not sure why you object to "generally known as Terry Wogan" - it's much clearer than putting it in as part of the full name. -- Necrothesp 17:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It says:

"A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said: "As Sir Terry obtained citizenship after the original announcement, his honorary knighthood was changed to an ordinary one.""

And putting "generally known as Terry Wogan" implies that he isn't (or won't be) known by the title (which may well be the case, but as he's only just got it we can't really make such implications). Proteus (Talk) 17:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. He obtained citizenship after the original announcement - he didn't have it already as the edit to the article originally said (it said he "always had dual British and Irish citizenship"). As to the second point, I actually meant that "generally known as Terry Wogan" looks better than putting "Terry" in his full name to indicate his nickname. Nothing to do with his knighthood. -- Necrothesp 18:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Cite Sources

An example of an unsourced page is Massacre of Braybrook Street. Superm401 | Talk 02:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

RE: Argentine police agencies

Oops, sorry, i'm still new here. Thanks for the advise. --OneEuropeanHeart 01:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Lourdes Spring

Bernadette Soubirous You have it that the Lourdes Spring no longer flows and water is being piped in from a municipal source. I am interested in finding out more about this. I know construction was done on the rock that the spring flowed from in, I think, the late 1980s. Do you have a source on this or any way I can find more information? Thanks, --Bluejay Young 04:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)