User talk:Phase4/Archive 1

Palme murder

I cannot understand why you removed my changes.

1. Main contribution - was to move the theories into a better order, i.e. first theory first, then the prime suspect today (Christer Pettersson) and third the right wind theory. These are the three main theories and it makes sence to take them first and put them in this order.

2. Adding of two alternative theories: - suicide - escape from Sweden.

These two theories are known to most Swedes and the latter has been broadcasted in Swedish television.

So why the f-ck do you as a non Swede think you know better?83.248.209.119 18:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Your changes were removed because they were either unencyclopedic or unsourced. For instance, your two alternative theories may well be known to most Swedes and Palme's "escape from Sweden" may have been broadcast on Swedish TV but where are the sources for your assertions? Also, if you look at Wikipedia's article in Swedish on the Palme murder, I would like you to point out where any of the changes you proposed to the English article are reflected.Phase4 10:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Shirley McKie

Given I have only commented on your work on the Shirley McKie page when I have disagreed with it, and that you have recently done work to update the page with developments I was not fully aware of, it seems only fair that I should note my appreciation of this. --Lucifer(sc) 16:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ta, very much!Phase4 21:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Pan Am Investigation

Yes, I saw it yesterday. I do fully intend to respond ASAP. Excuse me not giving it my immediate attention, but I am in the middle of something. I am very likely to manage to be able to respond to your points within the next few hours.

Off the top of my head: are you absolutely certain that I added "DERA" links? My recollection is that I removed a great number of duplicate DERA links - presumably made by your good self!--Mais oui! 23:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Your duplicated DERA link is 7 lines below Line 25 in the 08:15, 23 February 2006 edit.Phase4 11:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just checked: I actually removed 4 of your DERA links! In contrast to your statement, it is actually you who seems to like multiple wikifications.

Also, I fundamentally disagree with your opinion about red links, not that it has anything to do with my recent edits. Fortunatelly, you seem to be in a tiny minority on that matter here at Wikipedia: most of us place an extremely high value on red links, as it is one of the key tools in expanding the comprehensiveness of the encyclopedia.

I would strongly recommend that you link to your previous registered accounts, to avoid any possible suspicions of sockpuppetry. I see that you have stopped using them since this account was opened, but a notice on each of those accounts, giving the name of this new account, is strongly recommended:

• Phase1 (talk · contribs)
• Phase2 (talk · contribs)

Plus any others you may have previously used.

--Mais oui! 14:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Good article template

Hi Phase4,

The template you used to promote Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 was not the correct one, the correct one is {{GA}}.

As such your template has now been removed (that template was/is intended for the article page of good articles once they are promoted).

However there is now a new process being trialled to promote good articles.

Please see the good articles page.

Sincerely,

Cedars 01:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Cedars,

Very good of you to point this out, but it was not me (the main creator of the investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 article) who was presumptuous enough to list it as a "good" article: Mais oui! did it on 25 February 2006!

Please therefore address your template comments to Mais oui!Phase4 15:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, sorry for the confusion. Cedars 23:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The two James McDougalls

Thank you for your graciousness with regard to the two Jims. I appreciate your efforts! Fishhead64 17:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless you know something I don't...

but I do believe "honourary" to be quite valid British spelling, which South Africa uses. dewet|™ 10:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I stand corrected ;) This seems to be another one of the many quirks of the English language:

Note that even in British (and Canadian) spelling the “u” is often dropped when a suffix is added. Honorary and honorarium are often misspelled honourary and honourarium. However, honourable is the preferred Canadian spelling. [1]

Sorry for the bother. I'll go stand in the corner now. dewet|™ 10:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Making a point

Just please don't make point-proving moves like you did with Muammar al-Qaddafi. Even if you're right in this case, which I hope you feel like explaining further, your behavior does not seem to reflect that confidence appropriately.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't understand the point you are trying to make.Phase4 22:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Please move the article back without any decent motivation and make an honest attempt to address my inquiries in a constructive fashion. Currently you seem to be capable only of of sarcasm. This is not decent behavior and I urge you to stop it.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

何を言いますか？如是我聞

Regrettably, your point still escapes me.Phase4 10:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

如是我聞

何を言いますか？220.159.101.118 15:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

ʋ ʰ ʰ ʰ (Same to you, fella!)Phase4 21:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

削除作了的记述的正当的理由整整齐齐必要。那在笔记记录脊背～～～220.210.7.136 00:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this a comment in a foreign language: if so, which one?Phase4 11:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:PatriciaRawlings.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PatriciaRawlings.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

{fairusein} tag added. No probs.Phase4 21:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DouglasCarswell.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DouglasCarswell.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The image description page has now been edited appropriately.Phase4 10:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AzizPahad.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AzizPahad.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Rationale provided.Phase4 21:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

talkheader

Please do not create talk pages containing only this template. It is disruptive, as a blue link in the tab above the article page will mislead readers into thinking that there is actually discussion on the talk page, when in fact there isn't. —freak(talk) 15:24, Jul. 29, 2006 (UTC)

Fair comment.Phase4 15:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Pan Am 103 (1)

Hi, I was away for a day or two, will look at your comments on the Talk page now so that we can start working on the article --Deon Steyn 08:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, I'll therefore react to your comments on the Alternative theories into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 Talk page.Phase4 20:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Pan Am 103 (2)

Why did you remove my addition to the memorials for being unsourced, surely it would have been better to append a source needed tag and I would of provided one. --Goggage 14:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Goggage, for providing the references for your memorials edit that were missing a month ago!Phase4 20:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:REUTERS12NOV94.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:REUTERS12NOV94.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale has now been provided.Phase4 19:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed

I notice your use of "fact" appears nonethless to display ; is there any practical difference between the two?--Lucifer(sc) 13:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that we were tagging the McKie article simultaneously - see McKie talk page. Both tags are essentially the same.Phase4 13:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've read that now thanks; by God it seems we agree on something!--Lucifer(sc) 13:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Biography Newsletter September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 23:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 01:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

al-Gaddafi

Greetings. I claim that al-Gaddafi was PM, and I base my claim on Libya: a country study, Harold D. Nelson (ed.), American Univeristy, 1979, Washington, D.C.: "Qadhaafi became prime minister in January 1970...In July 1972 [Major Abdal Salaam] Jalloud assumed the position of prime minister." Can you offer evidence to the contrary?

As for the other template: who was Libya's head of state between 1969 and 1979? I know al-Gaddafi has never used any of the traditional titles reserved for heads of state, and that since 1979, other men have fronted for him and served as de jure heads of state; in the first decade of his rule, though, there was no front, right? I think that would imply that he was the head of state. Biruitorul 00:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Good argumentation, Biruitorul. However, I would simply refer you to Heads of Government of Libya where Gaddafi's name does not appear. And as for his being head of state, you may be right in what you say but the hard evidence is not there...in my view!Phase4 23:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:N739PA Maid of the Seas.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:N739PA Maid of the Seas.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale provided.Phase4 11:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:N739PA Maid of the Seas.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:N739PA Maid of the Seas.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 293.xx.xxx.xx 02:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Your fairuse rationale is now at issue as well, given the image talk page was possibly overlooked in the matter. --293.xx.xxx.xx 02:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Now see the image talk page.Phase4 09:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Palme

My claims about Palme's condescending attitude had sources, so why did you remove them? Besides, that's really uncontroversial to say that he was"thought to be condescending and unusally, for Swedish politics, aggressive in debates" - almost all right-wing people and some left-wing people think too.

I cannot see why you removed the stuff about his background either. It's just facts, not statements of controversial opinions. If you need to give a source for that you need to have foot-notes on every line, more or less.

The other comments about hatred and betrayal are also uncontroversial.

Settembrini 22:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The only factual information that you added related to his "grandomother" who came from a Finnish noble family, and to his mother who came from a Latvian-German noble family. An encyclopedic edit would have included the names of these noble families. The rest is just tittle-tattle.Phase4 13:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Tittle-tattle? Do you know anything about the Palme murder and the situation i Sweden? That the hatred against Palme was strong among a lot of people - Moderaterna's youth organization even had dart tables covered by pictures of Palme - is common knowledge. One influential theory is that a junkie like Christer Pettersson may have been influenced by these sentiments. This is not tittle-tattle but important information.

I find your comments on the noble families rather petty.

Settembrini 22:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Get over it, Settembrini, and find something else to do with your life!Phase4 22:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Couple...

Dear Phase4, as you are British, and I am only Swedish, I of course would never debate English grammar with you. You reverted my singular of "couple" in the Palme article (don't forget to do the same to the murder article as well), and I fully accept this. I understand that you prefer the plural version, and this makes me wonder: Do both versions (plural and singular) exist in proper English? If so, what is the difference? Can you give an example of when to use what form? Many thanks, Astor Piazzolla 12:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Astor. My dictionary says that the noun "couple" can be used in both sing. and pl. I cannot think of an example of where I would ever use it in the singular, though.Phase4 15:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

OK... Well, maybe in Minnesota... Regards, Astor

Thermocouple?

More seriously, this site gives an explanation from the U.S. point of view, though I suspect that much the same applies here in the U.K. for most people. That's confirmed by another (U.S.) site that offers the following response to a question about the grammatical correctness of "Couple face child abuse charges":

"In the U.S., a collective noun like couple (a singular entity incorporating more than one thing or person) will almost invariably be accompanied by a singular verb. In England, it will be accompanied by either a singular or a plural verb depending on whether or not the noun is being regarded as one thing or a collection of individual things acting separately ('The staff put on their coats'). So 'face' is not wrong in that headline, but in the U.S., at least, 'faces' would be more common.

"Authority: The New Fowler's Modern English Usage edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996. Used with the permission of Oxford University Press."[2]

I don't know if that helps. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Give me a couple of moments to ponder it – I mean them!Phase4 22:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:N739PA Maid of the Seas.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:N739PA Maid of the Seas.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

293.xx.xxx.xx 01:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Unable to expand upon fair use rationale already provided.Phase4 15:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Quotations

Correct English punctuation is to start each new paragraph of a quotation with quotation marks:

"If the quotation extends to more than one paragraph, each subsequent must start with a quote, but only the final paragraph will end with a quote." (Rees, Rules of Printed English 160) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you live and learn! Thanks for sorting out the quotation marks.Phase4 12:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure; I live to spread the message of pedantry... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Images of Pan Am 103 (N739PA)

Hey there, I read your contributions on Pan Am 103...thought maybe this might help on the image front.

Airliners.net has some pictures of Clipper Maid of the Seas (pre and post name change prior to the bombing). It may be possible to ask one of the authors from Airliners to contribute one of their photos for wikipedia use.

Last time I checked (about 5 min ago) there are 22 images of N739PA in the Airliners.net database. Search query can be found here: http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraft_genericsearch=&keywords=N739PA&engine_version=6.0

I hope this helps a little...at least Airliners is a slightly more stable website than a personal page from geocities (but in this day and age, who know?).

Cheers...

Vnv lain 18:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I see that an Airliners.net link has very recently been added to the Pan Am Flight 103 page. However, most of the images of N739PA on Airliners.net appear to be of its earlier incarnation as Clipper Morning Light (it was renamed Clipper Maid of the Seas in 1980, apparently).Phase4 10:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [unassessed articles] tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 21:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What about Volume No 1 ?Phase4 22:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Archive of Talk:Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103

Please correct the archive you made of this talk page, the archives numbers should be reversed. Also please refrain from archiving active discussion. See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. --Deon Steyn 09:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see the above-referenced talk page for explanation about Archive numbering.Phase4 10:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have correct archived talk pages according to the guidelines Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page). Please refrain from the following disruptive actions when you archive talk pages:

• losing/deleting discussions
• archiving active discussions
• pasting entire documents into talk pages and reference them from the article.

Deon Steyn 11:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)