User talk:Londo06/Archive 13

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 03:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's your problem?

Someone (in this case, me) makes a constructive edit, and you revert it straight back. Why? – Pee Jay 12:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Benítez

"Disappointing" and "poor" are POV words. Disappointing for who? Not Barnsley fans, that's for sure. And to imply his job is under pressure is yet more guesswork, unless you know what's going on in the Anfield board room. - Dudesleeper | Talk 21:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Count my reverts to the article and then read the WP:3RR page, then get back to me. - Dudesleeper | Talk 09:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I claimed that his position has been enhanced? This is yet another example of your opinions, which are the source of the problem. - Dudesleeper | Talk 18:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist coordinators election has started

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberate violations of MoS rules

Re your comments on my talk page:

There is no 3RR violation.

There is a consensus, well established and long-standing, at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Unit symbols and abbreviations:

Do not append an s for the plurals of unit symbols (kg, km, in, lb, not kgs, kms, ins, lbs).

This has been part of our style rules continuously for many years, since before I ever started editing on Wikipedia. It is User:Alexsanderson83 who is deliberately flouting that rule. Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. The use of "lbs" doesn't vary a whole lot geographically, but our choice for Wikipedia style is based on the modern rules of all the measurement style guides which have addressed it. See, for example, this edit in which User:Jimmy Pitt specifically points out to User:Alexsanderson83 the MoS rules and addresses his Engvar claims, this edit in which Jimmy Pitt points out to Alexsanderson83 the rules of the UK National Weights and Measures Laboratory, this edit pointing out the rules of the UK magazine, the Economist. Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC

Then there is this request on Alexsanderson's talk in which User:Ewen asks him to discuss it at Talk:Shane Williams#Ridiculous 'lbs' argument, where he says

Look, can you actually find somewhere that says that UK standard abbreviations for 'pounds' is 'lbs'? Because I can't - in fact, everywhere I look it's 'lb'.
This isn't a UK/US matter. It's simply that 'lbs' is not a recognised abbreviation - anywhere.

Then User:PeeJay also chimes in their to say "I, too, am a Briton, though I lived in Singapore for a spell, and in neither the UK nor Singapore have I ever come across "lbs" as a recognised abbreviation for "pounds", except when people use it mistakenly, as you have".

Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]