User talk:Necrothesp/Archive 1 - Wikipedia

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)Reply

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

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)

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

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.

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)

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)

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).

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/le@put.com

• 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/le@put.com

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/le@put.com

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/le@put.com

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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?

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.