User talk:OberRanks/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Germany awards allowed on US uniforms

For starters I please ask you to do a little research before you just jump the gun and start deleting things.

• For the German Armed Forces Badge for Military Proficiency go to the page of Major General Keith L. Thurgood http://aafes.com/pa/profiles/thurgood.html.

• For the Bundeswehr Cross of Honour go the page of General Bantz Craddock and look at the medals he is wearing on an official NATO military picture.

• For the German Merit Cross of the Federal Republic (Order of Merit) go to the page of General Joseph Ralston and look at the medals he is wearing on an official NATO military picture.

• For the German marksmanship badge (Schützenschnur) Command Sergeant Major (Retired) William J. (Joe) Gainey is wearing the badge on his official SEAC web site http://www.jcs.mil/bios/bio_gainey.html.

--EHDI5YS (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

A little research? My occupation is a military records historian and I work with US service records on a daily basis. I have seen thousands of service records and with the exception of the marksmanship badge, there is no standing procedure for the award of the German medals you mentioned. You have found some isolated cases, not cases which justify the standard. -OberRanks (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I really can't tell you how it's done in the Navy, but with most foreign awards in the USAF they are almost always a case by case basis any ways. The standard, what standard? Unless it is one of the foreign medals that are on all branches blanketed approved list, their is really no standard. Like I said it's case by case basis. I ask you to look at the German Armed Forces Badge for Military Proficiency page references, you'll see that ROTC cadets compete for this award annually. If that happens then you have to admit that this is way past "some isolated cases"--EHDI5YS (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats how its done in the navy and the army too, especially with flag officers. For instance every General or Admiral coming out of USFK or CNFK is almost always awarded some weird Korean decoration. The one stop sign to this is when the decoration is so rare and off the wall that the Defense Department can declare it not authorized for wear on a uniform. There is then a separate category of awards which the officer cant wear but can still have in the record and these are listed as "awards in the custody of the state department". It is an interesting system but in the end the rank and file of the military rarely see such medals. Germany is interesting since there are a lot of marksmanship and sports medals that get awarded, that is very true. Your general is an interesting case and I will research him since I haven't seen anyone get that medal before. -OberRanks (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I need your help, I wanted to add this to the end of the British awards statement. But I'm really stumped with word play today.

"The other awards have came due to the war on terrorism in which both the U.S. and British militaries have supported each other with air combat support."

I think this line should be added, since the DFC was presented to a USMC Maj and the other awards have been presented Special Forces personal, the start of 2007. --EHDI5YS (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

RfAr comment

Thank you for your informative and sensitive comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch#Adding a closing comment if that's all right. It may reassure you to know that it's quite likely that Vid O has resumed editing under another name, and hopefully will take more care in future. . . dave souza, talk 08:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Indiana Jones WikiProject Now Open!

I have finally created a WikiProject for Indiana Jones! Check it out. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 04:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comparing US Marine and US army enlisted ranks and British army/marine NCOs - help needed with source

The current NATO rank comprarisons work from the OR system (based on the US E1 to E9 grades) However, there is a mor difference between reposonsiblities of each rank between the US Marine and US aRmy and also with the British. A simple example is the infantry structure where fireteams, squads(Br. Section) are led by lower OR ranks in the US Marines and Br. Army.

I had a source that The American's acknowledge this in their guide for exchange officers: UK Lance Corporal = US Sergeant (army) [fire team leader] UK Corporal = US Staff Sergeant (army [suad/section leader] UK Sergeant = US Sergeant First Class (army) [senior NCO under officer in platoon]

The link is now defunked www-tradoc.army.mil/uk...ix%20N.htm

It makes some sense since the BR army has 4 classes of Private before responsibility is given at Lance Corporal and the fact that Corporals in the US army are rarer than they used to be - most being Specialist and getting nearly always getting to be Sergenat (OR-5) at the first level of command repsponsibility. Also US Marine Corporals would seem more equinalent to US Army sergeant etc.

I tried to change British and US ranks compared in the past but had no source to back this up (even though relevant pages on military unit back up the assertion this is not enough).

As an officer in the US Navy are you able to source the US military guidance on such matters particularly the one (or similar) in the defunked link above? Dainamo (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

General of the Army

That looks fine to me. And nice to meet you as well. Neovu79 (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

General of the Armies vs. General of the Armies of the United States

Since you have done studies on the subject maybe you can help me. When I look at the comparison between General of the Armies and General of the Armies of the United States, I see two distinct grades and not one of the same. Does Pub.L. 66-45 actually state that Pershing's full rank is called General of the Armies of the United States like is does for Washington in Pub.L. 94-479? I have not been able to actually find Pub.L. 66-45 anywhere online and was hoping that you have. Neovu79 (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

They are exactly the same rank. One is just the shortened version. Its very much like "Fleet Admiral of the United States Navy" which is the proper title for the rank Nimitz and the gang held during WWII, but in verbal conversation it was very much simply "Fleet Admiral". -OberRanks (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:US Navy navbox

Naval Forces Korea, Naval Forces Japan and Naval Forces, Marianas are not considered major commands even though they are shore commands for the 7th Fleet area of responsibility. All three shore commands and the 7th Fleet fall under as subcomponents of the United States Pacific Fleet which is a major naval command do they not?. They should probably be integreated into the United States Pacific Fleet. Neovu79 (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The naval shore forces have very unique powers that make them different from, say, a naval base or a regular naval unit like a construction battalion or an inshore boat unit. The most imporrtant of which is automatically granted SOPA status to any ship docked in thier area. My background on this is 13 years in the Navy, 6 of which was sent as a flag aide and staff officer in CNFK. -OberRanks (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate your views, what is your background to revert these edits? No offense, but your user page says you are in JROTC. Not that this is a bad thing, you could easily be an insturctor with 20-30 years in the regular Navy. But, as for me, my background is as a LCDR who served for six years in CNFK as both a flag aide and a staff officer. This can also be verified independently by naval regulations and publications that the shore commands hold a unique position in the Navy. -OberRanks (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Bit of advice: credentials are irrelevant. There is really no way to verify you are who you say you are, nor is there a way to verify that you actually hold that knowledge and experience you cliam to have (excepting your contributions). Nor would it really matter in any case, since attributability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia.

For example, Jon is a scientist, and he makes a discovery in some obscure area of physics. It's a very notable revelation, and in due course, some enterprising editor creates an article for that discovery. However, he's made a critical error that gives readers a completely wrong perception about the discovery. Jon CANNOT just change the article to correct the mistake; he has to cite a source for that. For an example of why this is bad, see the Essjay controversy.

In a nutshell: touting your credentials does no good, even if they are true. For most users, it will win you no points in a discussion (of course, many editors hold different views, and some will defer to you). The better path is to establish a reputation in Wikipedia, and even then, the anti-establishment editors won't be impressed. bahamut0013♠♣ 18:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I was simply pointing out that I did know what I was talking about in contrast to someone who appears to be in JROTC. In any case, for any article that only thing that matters is a verifable source. I've been around long enought to know that; thanks though for the advice. -OberRanks (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of credentials, you might find it amusing that I wrote most of the military award articles linked on your user page (nice page, by the way, Corporal). I actually once had a very open user page with all my assignments and awards and dates of rank but have found that Wikipedia does have some very strong anti-military elements and some even strong anti-US elements. I actually try to keep quiet about it these days (for the most part). -OberRanks (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean, I've seen some folks that have an agenda and seriously push a POV. Luckily, however, most of the admins seem to be committed to the NPOV policy and I've not had any major altercations regarding my affiliation.

I find it amusing, that given our similar affiliations, this is the first we've crossed paths. Have you ever considered joining some WikiProjects? You might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history; I haven't seen either of your user names in the participant lists. Cheers! bahamut0013♠♣ 22:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I sadly have had some very bad experiences on Wikipedia in particular about 2 years ago when a Wikipedia flame/dispute boiled over to the real world and I had some users on this site actually try to find out who I was and other details about my life. I also have had some very bad run-ins with literal "long haired hippies" who told me that my connection with the military earned me no respect which led to my exposure to the unseen anti-US/anti-military crowd which inhabits this site. Amazing, really, most of them are from the UK and Australia (supposed to be our strongest allies!) I'm sure its just the one bad apple in the batch though. Anyway, becuase of all this, I edit casually, try not to advertise who I am in a very loud voice, and walk away when edit disputes get heated. It's all for fun here, yet we have some people (and some admins, actually) who take things way too seriously. -OberRanks (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Setting aside my, "dubious credentials". I'm not trying to set on anybody's feet here. The navybox is quite cluttered as it is and I think adding the much information to it is... I dare not say "unproductive"... more like "reverse productive". I just believe that information should be placed in to current articles that are established but vastly need work. Now going back to my credentials, it is very true that my time in the JROTC does not mean much or does me growing up in a Army and Navy family. While I am a civilian, I have spent the last 10 years working as a government employee at the Pentagon and now at BUPERS at the Navy Annex. Even that does not qualify me as a expert but I like to think I know a little more than the average Joe. :-) Like I said, I don't claim to be an expert; just trying to help Wiki more structured. I normally leave the research and info to the other users like yourself. Neovu79 (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with you being in JROTC and nothing wrong with you making the most aggressive edits to any article. I was just honestly curious about your background since you seem to have a lot of zeal about these articles which is good. -OberRanks (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of Korean rank article

This is the way I see it: the proper pictures for this page (and others) were once part of the page, but were deleted due to the fair-use image eater or some such. The use of pictures of US insignia is not an acceptable substitute for the appropriate insignia, and I believe may be even confusing to the casual reader, who may come upon them and assume, "Oh, wow! What a coincidence! We have the same rank insignia!" I understand that this being an English-speaking encyclopedia, an explanation of rank equivalence does need to accompany foreign rank, but I think that use of the NATO STANAG code is sufficient, use of US rank in text form is more than sufficient, but use of US rank images is excessive. Lastly, I realize creation does require more effort than deletion, but I think the presence of US rank images on this page may discourage the creation and insertion of the proper images. Sergeantgiggles (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That entire article needs to repaired. It once had pictures for each and every rank insignia from all three countries but then was hit hard by a gang of folks bent on declaring the entire thing a copyright violation. What made this absolutely ridiculous was we had South Korean officers, CNFK staff, and JAG officers ready to state that these insignia were free and clear to use on the site. Yet we still had some users on this site who cried "Its all lies", deleted everything, and threatened to block/ban anyone who uploaded such images again. Most of that original crowd isnt active on Wikipedia anymore. I do plan to correct and repair that entire article but just dont have the time right now. Anyway, taking the US insignia off would be a step in the wrong direction since thats the only thing that survived the original purge of the article. BTW- thanks for your interest in that article. Its been kind of abandoned by the mainstream crowd. -OberRanks (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yarborough

Please see this [1]. I've deleted the claim on the William Yarborough article. dougweller (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Friedrich Jeckeln

The image should to stay in the article. This is of a shooting in Latvia that occurred simultaneous with the time that the article's subject was in charge of shootings in Latvia. Spacing issues can be overcome, but this image is important to convey what the article's subject was in charge of.Mtsmallwood (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Towards the middle or bottom would be fine. At the top as it was, it causes the text to "squish" and the table of contents to be gaped. At least on my browser. -OberRanks (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, let me see what looks good. Herr Jeckeln has quite a bit that can be added to his biography, as I learned from my work on Rumbula massacre.Mtsmallwood (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Movie questions

Instead of article talk pages, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment would probably be a more appropriate forum for the questions you left on Talk:Nigger and Talk:History of Madagascar. Likely to get a quicker response too. --Onorem♠Dil 23:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats a great page. I used it and got an answer within 24 hours. Thanks! -OberRanks (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you help us?

A few editors (myself included) are working on bringing the battleship USS Connecticut (BB-18) up to FA status in time for a main page appearance on 22 February. As part of this effort, I was wondering if you could offer any insight as to where we might find reliable sources concerning the court martial of William Swift. Can you help? TomStar81 (Talk) 00:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Help

Per your note on WP:AN, there's probably not much to be done, but let's wait and see how others feel (I haven't investigated the copyright problem). However, if someone tries to substitute an article written privately for one written collaboratively, it's not likely they'll be too successful. You mentioned that you were having trouble with inline citations for the article. Would you like some instruction on how to use the citation templates? - Nunh-huh 02:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I got some eyes on it so everything looks good right now. I agree if the user blanked the existing article and cut and pasted in another, that would draw attention. And, yes, in-line citations have always been difficult as I can't find a standard guide on Wikipedia as to how to do them. I usually wind up cutting and pasting formats from other articles which takes time. -OberRanks (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, cutting and pasting is actually a pretty good way to do it, but you don't need to hunt around to find what you need in other articles. You can use the search box to look for "cite" templates, or make a little cheat sheet for yourself, put it somewhere where you'll find it, and refer to it.

cite a book: <ref>{{cite book |title= |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |year= |publisher= |location= |isbn= |page= |pages= |url= }}</ref>

cite the Web: <ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |accessdate=|work= |publisher= |date= }}</ref>

cite the news: <ref>{{cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title= |url= |work= |publisher= |date= |accessdate=}}</ref>

You can make any of these into a "named reference" by using <ref name=> instead of <ref> as the opening (filling in the name you want the reference to have). If for example you call the reference "NYTimes", you'd use <ref name=NYTimes> once, then on subsequent uses just use <ref name=NYTimes/> as the whole reference (note where the slash goes).

- Nunh-huh 23:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Hello, I have tried to move the picture "File:OldWICAmpMed.jpg" you have uploaded into the english wiki to Commons, in order to use it in the french wiki. Unfortunatly, it does not work at the moment. Could you please move it to Commons. Thank you in advance for your help. Skiff (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC) I will also translate in french in the next days Awards and decorations of the United States military, [Awards and decorations of the United States Air Force]], Awards and decorations of the United States Army, Awards and decorations of the United States Coast Guard, Military awards of the United States Department of the Navy,Awards and decorations of the United States Merchant Marine. If you have uploaded some pictures of medals in the english wiki, could you put them into Common. Thank you. Skiff (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Bonsaw, mon amie. My knowledge of Commons is very limited. I tried having an account over there once and several images I posted were taken off and then I couldnt get back into my account. Sorry I can't be of much help. -OberRanks (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have the same problem. Commons is quite difficult to use. I will try to have more help in the french side. Thanks for the reply. Have a nice day. Skiff (talk) 06:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Richard Radecki

A tag has been placed on Richard Radecki requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. andy (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:RadeckiRichard.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:RadeckiRichard.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 04:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your work in the creation of the Service Number series of articles for the armed forces. Thank you! Cuprum17 (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! It was a very fun project and the results are looking good. -OberRanks (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Jack W. Hill

I put up the tag in case someone tagged it for deletion, looks like the makings of a good article. GainLine ♠ _♥ 19:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:NPRC isnt't the military

Ahh, ok, that I didn't know. I just figured it was under the DoD. I should've read the article--Monkeybait (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dennis Earl Bradford

A tag has been placed on Dennis Earl Bradford requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 17:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Jennifer Schuett

I have nominated Jennifer Schuett, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Schuett. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kevin (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You might have wanted to look into this more closely. There are over half a million internet hits on this girl and her story and the capture of her attacker is on every major news network. You might want to consider speedy keeping the article. -OberRanks (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but no. WP:BLP1E states that we should not keep articles on people only notable for a single event - in this case the rape. Kevin (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I moved and rewrote the artice. It is now about the crime itself and not the victim. I do wish we had discussed this first and the rush to AfD has resulted in two page moves trying to fix this. Can we discuss it first next time if you wish to start up a third AfD on thsi new article. I don't think that would be neccesary, though, since the article is clearly now about the crime and not the victim. -OberRanks (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of James Ackerman (USMC)

I have nominated James Ackerman (USMC), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Ackerman (USMC). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. CynofGavuf 18:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Alexander Schott

I have nominated Alexander Schott, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Schott. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 19:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Debtates

I just wanted to give you a freindly warning: some of the messages you've been leaving might look like canvassing to some. I understand that you're frustrated with the way the AfD discussions are going and want to get some more like-minded individuals into the discussions, because I do feel the same way. However, the method you're using could be interpreted as a violation of the rule (not to me, but others might think so). In addition to that, it's mostly ineffective... there really aren't many active editors interested in the Marine Corps besides myself and Tony. Looper 5920 hasn't been around much lately, and ERcheck has been extremely inactive. There really aren't any more experienced editors that I know of...
Oh, and you may wish to consider activating your email function, I wanted to email this privately but couldn't. bahamut0013^words_deeds 05:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont have e-mail on this site becuase of what happened when I was User:Husnock. I had editors send very threatening e-mails off Wiki and one threatened my wife. Since then, I keep it to this site. Sorry for the inconvenience. -OberRanks (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

not to me, but others might think so Editors like me - pack it in or we can head off to AN/I. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Shouldnt be anything wrong with advertising a hot topic on boards where people of the same interest spend thier time; the same for contacting other editors who worked on the same article. I actually think I've been pretty professional about it. On every post I made it clear that I was only soliticing opinions, for good or bad and have stated several times that I was fine with what consensus had to say. I'm not too concerned and I doubt it would go very far if anyone posted it to to Administrator Noticeboard. Thanks for the input though. -OberRanks (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Name

I appreciate your concern, but I had that in mind when I chose to go ahead and identify myself. A google search of my username will probably get you that info anyway. I'm not particularly concerned, as the brief spat with BunnsUSMC showed; but I do know a 'crat with oversight who will be more than happy to help me if the need actually arises. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2009 Belleville school bus beating

The article 2009 Belleville school bus beating has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A case of school bullying which got some news coverage. No evidence of particular significance. WP:NOTFOXNEWS

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Scott Mac (Doc) 00:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The NAACP involovment is the only thing that holds that article together. Feel free to take it to a standard deletion vote. Right now, I would say "weak keep". -OberRanks (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of 2009 Belleville school bus beating

I have nominated 2009 Belleville school bus beating, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Belleville school bus beating. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Scott Mac (Doc) 01:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Cossack Talk Page

While every editor is allowed to remove remarks from their talk page, it's generally a sign that they have taken on board the advice and I'm concerned that you haven't. You don't have to break 3RR to edit war. In the Cossack article you were quite keen to add material that at least two other editors had removed, without discussion. From the other talk page items above, I can see that I'm not the first to be concerned abou the notability of the material you add. Alastairward (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It was re-copied to the article talk page (where it should have gone in the first place) and the dispute appears resolved (as far as I know). Have a great day! -OberRanks (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:EarlySSTrooper.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:EarlySSTrooper.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

New photo

Ta daa! Tracked down and got permission for a pic of SS fulldress uniform- check it out Cheers! Solicitr (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Your work on those articles is outstanding. I noticed we're still short on Orpo police baords for Leutnant, O-Leutnant, and H-Mann. Any ideas? Thanks for all your efforts. -OberRanks (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Image needs source

File:OrangeLanyard.jpg needs a source or it will be deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Five year old picture...no idea right now. Would have to go back and find out where it came from. -OberRanks (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC

Hi, and thanks for the input and cool head, you've been a real trooper! (lame pun intended) Given the latest response from A (see my and the RTT article's talk pages) I think we might have no recourse but to take this one step further. Your input would be much appreciated. Regards, Miqademus (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

General of the Armies

Re: General of the Armies. Thanks for the note. Been trying to keep an eye on things and keep the facts straight (like this). The more eyes the better. — MrDolomite • Talk 03:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

OberRanks, if we discover that Pershing was never officially promoted to General of the Armies, then as the military historian that was involved in discovering this oversight, you have a chance to make serious history for yourself personally by attempting to correct it! Let me know when you will be on CNN!!! Corwin8 (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Formatting

To format an FAQ add {{FAQ}} to the article talk page; this should produce the box titled FAQ. From there, hit the edit tab, and format like such:

noinclude{{FAQ page}}/noinclude

{{FAQ row}}

Use as many {FAQ row|q=|a=} tabs as you need to address the points in question.

For examples of FAQ templates in use, you can look at the talk pages for Iowa class battleship, StarCraft II, and Abortion, all three use this type of FAQ box to address common issues to the pages in question; I left three examples so you can see what others put in their boxes so as to build a good FAQ box for the page in question. Hope that helps. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, OberRanks. You have new messages at Marc Kupper's talk page.
Message added 07:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you for the heads up. I don't know if you watchlist talk pages and here's a TB for you. :-) --Marc Kupper|talk 07:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

General of the Armies

Since you and Corwin8 (talk · contribs) can not not seem to agree on a version of this article that works, and since I fear having your version as the protect version will keep you from discussing the article content with Corwin8 and the rest of the community, I have elected to return the article to the last version edited before you and Corwin8 enter the current disagreement over the content. Its my belief that since neither of you now have 'your' version of the article protected you will both be more open to working together to find a solution that works for everyone.

On a related note, I've also changed the protection level for the article from indefinite to 30 days or so. I would have rolled the article back to the version you suggested, however I did not want to appear to be giving preferential treatment to your camp. For what its worth, I believe that its your version that is most accurate here, as I know that you have direct access to the material in question beyond what us civilians get to see. At any rate, with the playing field thus leveled, I suspect that Corwin8 will be more willing to participate in any type of discussion now. Bon chance, OberRanks. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That was a very wise decision. I've brought up four points on the talk page for consideration and you'll welcome to participate. -OberRanks (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. I have no problem with adding his comments on my talk page to the rfc if it helps us reach a consensus on what gets put in. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Service Numbers: images vs. tables

Hi, I see you didn't like me swapping the image out for a table on Service number (United States Marine Corps), so I wanted to drop by and give you my reasoning. :) I was trying to make the page more accessible per WP:MOS#Avoid entering textual information as images, as it seems having information in modifiable text format is preferable to an image so non-sighted people using screen readers can access the data, and so that it's easier for everyone to edit the information. For instance, in the image I replaced with a table, I noticed that "USMC Officers (World War II)" and "USMC Officers (1948–1966)" overlapped on service number 50,000. I was also able to format the numbers and spacing, such as putting unspaced en dashes between the numbers (also from the Manual of Style). I apologize for leaving the image orphaned and not asking on your talk page about the number overlap—I was called away from my computer right after making that edit. At any rate, I'd like to help you improve the pages, and it would be great to have your support. For one thing, we wouldn't have to waste their time over at WP:FFD if you tagged the images with {{db-author}}. Let me know what you think, thanks! — Bility (talk) 07:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didnt get back to you until now. Not opposed to any changes, of course, just need to be uniform. We have five different service number articles, they all have the neat pictures. If you would like to do a revamp in accordence with any image policies in place, by all means do so. My original revert was just becuase I didnt understand what was going on. Thanks for letting me know! -OberRanks (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, made the image conversions here for you to take a look at. I used a little discretion when deciding how to split some of the images up, so you might spot some changes that need to be made. Let me know if they're good enough to go live or if they need altering. Cheers, — Bility (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That looks pretty good to me. If you would like to start swapping out, that would be great. -OberRanks (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

6 star image

Thanks for finding the source info on that 6 star image for General officers in the United States. I admit I've been a little gunshy about anything not sourced in the general officer family of articles lately due to the GotA. — MrDolomite • Talk 16:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It badly needs more sources. I am looking around for those. -OberRanks (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

OberRanks, you shouldn't have removed the speedy deletion tag, even if the editor's reason for placing it was misguided and remains inexplicable. I was about to remove it anyway. Mephistophelian (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw it little more than vandalism, to be honest. Apologies if I broke policy. -OberRanks (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly disruptive, and also seems vindictive. I've placed a request to desist on the editor's talk page. Mephistophelian (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:HeydrichSDAppoint.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:HeydrichSDAppoint.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 01:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#OberRanks --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Niel. Pure "revenge posting", IMHO. I feel I did nothing improper. -OberRanks (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, your comment to Baseball Bugs could have been worded a bit better. Something along the lines of achieving consensus on the talk page and then enforcing it with the article. Mk5384 does have a case for his preferred version and while hashing things out on the talk page may be frustrating, it makes for a stronger case if a 3RR violation is reported. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This edit removes any doubt as to this user's motives. But, you are correct, probably wasn't the best wording in my original message to Bugs. -OberRanks (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate your feelings but...

On my talk page you wrote:

I can appreciate your feelings on the matter at the JP article, but please do not remove sections or text made by other users, regardless of how you feel about it. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines clearly states this is only acceptable if it is blatant vandalism. Other text should be left as is or archived. What happened with that user is also in no way impacting our discussions on the article - in fact, it looks like those nicknames are going to be restored as consensus has made a good case. Your edits and comments have been very beneficial to that article and I would hate to see you get into hot water for removing other's comments from the talk page. -OberRanks (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see wp:talk, and the advice from 2 uninvolved editors concerning your behaviour on the talk page. Please rest assured that I will be in no hot water over removing those remarks. I will remove them if restored. If you would like, I can open a thread at wp:WQA, but you already have input from the community on the fact that the remarks are not appropriate.- Sinneed 15:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Didn't know we had two other editors commenting about this. Thought it was a dead issue. - OberRanks (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Per your objection, I have archived your inappropriate remarks. Please do not do this again.- Sinneed 15:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it would have been best to leave that one alone. The user who those remarks are about doesn't need any defending right now - there is a one week block for disruptive editing accompanied by profane outbursts against no less than 3 admins. I should also point out that I was merely responding to the comments made by another editor (the thread you removed was actually started by User:Baseball Bugs (not me). He should really be notified about the removal since the bulk of the thread were his comments. -OberRanks (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw. It's OK by me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC)"I think it would have been best to leave that one alone." - I agree... thus I removed the inappropriate remarks. I do understand you think they should have remained, yet this conflicts with your statements above, that they don't affect consensus. If they don't, then they don't belong and archiving hurts nothing.

"I should also point out that I was merely responding to the comments made by another editor" - no, you restored the entire thing, thus taking personal responsibility for it.- Sinneed 15:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC)"I don't entirely agree with removing these remarks right now" - yet you state "What happened with that user is also in no way impacting our discussions on the article". I see a conflict there. And yes, the section was simply blanked as inappropriate. Your new remark is also offtopic, and you should not have made it. See wp:TALK. Article talk pages should ONLY drive toward improving the article. Neither set of remarks does anything of the sort.- Sinneed 15:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like everybody is okay with it, so it sounds good to me. -OberRanks (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that alerting other editors to the block of a contentious user was inappropriate. However, by the time it was archived, probably everyone (or anyone) that cared about it would have read it, so archiving it was fine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock of Mk5384

Thanks for the advice, but as you can see, I have already been unblocked. You started this whole thing by taking the Pershing issue to ANI before I even got involved with it. The fact that you think I owe anyone an apology other than Xeno, and perhaps Guy shows that your still not ready to admit what a mess you've caused. You have talked about how you've been won over to displaying the information you wanted to remove in the first place. That's great- it only took all of this trouble, and the besmirching of my name. You tried to remove sourced information from an article, you tried to make up rules about Wikipedia, you requested no fewer than 13 blocks of me, you reported me for things I didn't do, you canvassed to get others to conspire against me. So please don't come around pretending to offer empathy, when an apology is what's in order. You have asked me not to post on your talk page; now please don't post on mine. Thank you.Mk5384 (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If the above is the approach we can expect from you in the future, your return is liable to be short-lived. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, not much of a return when the first action is to post such a message on your "opponent's" talk page. I also see this is part of a grand conspiracy and this was never MK's fault. Oh well, we wondered what would happen when the block was lifted and now we've found out. -OberRanks (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• See, I miss everything. I didn't know you were the former Husnock. A belated welcome back. Probably best to disengage from Mk right now, his apology that was just brought to my userpage is enough for me to accept that the message got home. Guy (Help!) 13:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very good advice. The main issue at Talk:John J. Pershing article is still very much unresolved, but I don't plan on flaring up that issue any further. We've really beat it to death quite extensively. Mk has, unfortunately, made it clear that the user may still edit war at the Pershing article as well some statements made a few days ago about going to ANI and requesting a block against me and Bugs for canvassing and a conspiracy. I don't have any plans to engage this user any further, though, unless its to answer a charge at ANI as well as normal edits to John Pershing as appropriate. Thanks for everything both then and now, best to you! -OberRanks (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If he tries to re-post unilaterally, he'll get reverted. I'm sure many eyes are upon him now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John J. Pershing. For the Mediation Committee, Seddon talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 04:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Easter

Whilst we have had some heated disagreements, in the spirit of Easter and Passover, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your cooperation in trying to resolve the ongoing issues with the Pershing article. Happy holidays!Mk5384 (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt that the entire community is extremely impressed and even somewhat in awe of the way you are almost as a new editor, cooperating with others and proposing consensus solutions so shortly after a block. And, yes, indef block on you was not a good idea in the first place. Very impressive and something very few editors (including me) have ever done before. Thanks! -OberRanks (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

wp:NPA

This was not appropriate. Please read and understand wp:NPA. - Sinneed 16:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been as clear as I know how, and am sorry my remarks have proven unhelpful. All the best, and happy editing.- Sinneed 16:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry! I was commenting on the content, not the contributor. It was also mixed in with a compliment to the user for being such a good sport. :-) -OberRanks (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"This looks like nothing but trouble and, like I said, the editor appears to be trying to provoke you." - This is, in no way, a comment on content. Stop now.- Sinneed 17:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

My Thanks

My most sincere thanks for the barnstar. It's almost hard to believe how far we have come, thinking where we were just a short time ago. Sineed's comments did indeed seem intent on exhuming a buried hatchet. Whilst we may never agree on the Pershing article, we have worked together as best as we can, and that is what Wikipedia is all about. You are, of course, welcome on my talk page anytime. I'm sure, given our mutual interests, that we have the potential to collaborate on similar articles in the future, even if we continue to disagree on this one. Again, thank you, and all the best.Mk5384 (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Heydrich's service record

I realize that this reply is late, but I have a bit of a problem with your statement:

"most military history textbooks about WWII state that Heydrich was the undisputed ruler of Czechoslovakia and that his "boss" von Neurath (who Heydrich never in any way answered to in day-to-day operations) was only titular".

It may be true that Heydrich did not "answer to" Neurath, but he was still technically subordinate to him. If you don't count Neurath, then you must consider high Nazi authority whom Heydrich most definitely answered to: Heinrich Himmler and Adolf Hitler. Technically, Heydrich could not take any serious action in Czechoslovakia that wasn't approved by the highest possible authority within Nazi Germany: Heinrich Himmler or Adolf Hitler. This is not just in Heydrich's case, but the same can be said for just about any other Nazi official. After 1942, most within the party couldn't do anything unless orders came down from Himmler or Hitler (and yes, this even applies to Göring aswell - so if it applies to Göring, it most definitely applies to Heydrich). My point is this: he "ran the show" yes, but still worked on orders from Hitler, and especially Himmler. As such, Heydrich was not the "undisputed ruler" as you claim. Veronica (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably should address this on the talk page of the article. -OberRanks (talk) 00:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Did just that now. Veronica (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Pershing talk page

It is not correct that "by definition, no one should alter (a) talk page". There are numerous cases in which it is appropriate, and this was one of them. My comments about another article are in no way germane to this one. There are myriad reasons for my differing opinions; some nuanced, some overwhelming. In any case, it was misleading, and its removal completely appropriate. All the best-Mk5384 (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

That was a new one for me. I had never seen before one user quote another who then removed it. I'm leaving that one to the original editor. -OberRanks (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're leaving it to the original editor, why did you attempt to put it back? Auntie E was not there to improve the Pershing article. She is one of the POV pushers whom, as Baseball Bugs perfectly put it, wants the story of Genesis declared a fairy tale by Wikipedia. She was at the Pershing page to bolster support for the inclusion of "myth". I.e. if you say "nigger" shouldn't be censored, than you have to agree with "myth".

I answered on your talk page. The best thing to do is ask an administrator to remove it. You might be right, but blanking her comments is definitely wrong. -OberRanks (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No; your putting them back after saying that you would leave it to her is wrong. I have notified her of what I did. If you really want comments about "Genesis Creation myth" on the Pershing page, then you can ask an admin to archive it, or put it back. I have stated clearly why this dosen't belong there, and you have said that you will leave it to the original editor. Please do so.Mk5384 (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet case regarding Pershing dispute

I thought you should know that I went ahead and opened a case here regarding Mk5384, Kind Journalist and Excessively Brief. Auntie E. (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

German Sports Badge

I just wanted to thank you for your work on the article about the German Sports Badge. I've been trying to figure out how to create a history section for quite a while. I will see if there is anything more I can contribute to that.

Greetings from Germany, rikkk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Der rikkk (talk • contribs) 19:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ausgezeichneit mein Freund! -OberRanks (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

BRD

I have replied to your question on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Abbreviation (BRD). Cheers,  Chzz  ►  21:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hitler's S.S.: Portrait in Evil

I note you made some nice detailed additions of late. I finally re-checked the article after being away from it for a long time. Anyway, I have an old VHS copy of the film. I once bought a DVD copy but it was a very poor issue. I have read that the other two and three offered for sale at places like eBay and Amazon are also poor copies of the film. Do you know anyone that does a good version of the film? The film is far from perfect, as you know, but is a fair attempt in the end. Kierzek (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The version offered by "War Classics" is the best one around on DVD. Its the one I have. They should have made that into a 7 part mini-series instead of craming it into 3 hours. The best is seeing Bill N. in his prime. -OberRanks (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

The copyright police are about to delete the Orpo enlisted shoulderboarsds, and I certainly can't ID the source for them. Can you?

You might also want to look at the pieces I'm assembling on my talk page for an article on Wehrmacht Heer ranks and insignia- with all delete-proof images. Cheers! Solicitr (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I have an idea about that. If they are up for deletion, it might be best to save the images while you can as those are hard to come by. -OberRanks (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384

Your post on Durova's talk page almost defies belief. " I have removed them, and propose if they are added again that the article be protected"- Are you kidding? What your saying is " I have fixed this article to the way that I want it; I have told Mk5384 again and again how I want the article to look, and he refuses to listen to me- Please take steps to make sure that the article remains the way I want it." I have tried to assume good faith with you, but I can only go so far. You might want to read these policies that you are citing before citing them. You also may want to take a look at WP:Wikipedia is not about winning. By the way, you are in violation of policy to solicit Durova's (or any other editor's) vote.Mk5384 (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Its not against policy to alert editors who are involved in an active dispute to participate in a vote, especially when you don't actively tell them which side to vote (for/against). -OberRanks (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It most certainly is. Again, I suggest that you actually read these policies.Mk5384 (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, feel free to report me for violating WP:CANVASS. The link to the admin noticeboard is WP:ANI. -OberRanks (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention of reporting you. I'm an adult. I was simply pointing out policy to you.Mk5384 (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, sounds good. You should be aware, though, that it really is not against policy to make suggestions to other editors that they participate in a vote on an article with which they have been involved with. The problem happens when one makes biased suggestions, like "Hey, we'll show him. Come and vote against this crap" or something like that. Simply making an innocent vote announcement, i.e. "There is currently a vote in progress on an article you have previously edited" is not at all inappropriate, in fact, it is encouraged to get the widest participation possible. -OberRanks (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not like you went to her talk page, and said something along the lines of: "I see you seem to have an interest in the John Pershing article. I have started a vote, and invite you to participate." The fact is, you went on her talk page, thanked her, explained exactly what you wanted to see happen with the article, and then asked her to vote. It was against policy. Again, I'm doing my best to assume good faith. I don't think that you purposely violated policy. I just wanted to point it out. Thank you.Mk5384 (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

She herself is an administrator and didn't admonish me for breaking policy, but instead voted on the issue. I have also edited on this site since 2004 and am trying to give you some friendly advice here. If you truly believe I broke policy, you should report it to the administrators at WP:ANI. In my view, saying you won't because you are an adult is perhaps a veiled attempt at saying you won't because you know such an accusation won't hold up. Beating this to death also serves no purpose. I think the best thing is to agree to disagree. Further posts on this will be removed if you choose to continue commenting. I suggest take it to ANI or let it drop. -OberRanks (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

After going back and reading some of the things that I wrote to you, it's very clear to me that I did not choose the best words in some cases. My apologies.Mk5384 (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested to know that the above user has been blocked for two weeks, for edit warring. Sad, really. Parrot of Doom 15:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked as well after a review by admins. I fear that might embolden the user to do further edit warring. I would encourage further reports if that does in fact occur. -OberRanks (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that's ok, it seems to have tempered his posts, and he looks now to be less confrontational in the way he edits. That was my main problem really, that instead of raising the points (and there were a few minor issues), he simply deleted/changed what he thought was wrong, and refused to listen to any argument on the matter (for instance, assuming a consensus on album numbering had appeared in only 3 hours, on a Sunday night). Now, post-block, it appears as though he's much more willing to engage with others. I think the block has served its purpose and hopefully he'll continue to contribute and improve the articles he's criticised. Parrot of Doom 08:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully you're right. Having dealt with this user over 7 admin noticeboard notices, there is a pattern of disruption, anger, a block, calming down, an unblock, brief cooperation, then back to disruption. Mixed into it a desire to see others punished for wrongdoing and a refusal to hardly ever admit any responsibility for his own actions, saying that every situation is always someone else's fault and then demanding apologies from the wikipedia community. There is also a very unhealthy personal interest in me, with comments that I am stalking this user and well as a string of edits that my user page is a lie and I am not really a member of te U.S. military, something I find incredibly insulting. What you have there at the end of the day is a very scary situation and someone who is headed for a lengthy block if not an indef ban. I guess we will see what comes in the future- if it continues we may need to to go the RFC route but there doesn't appear much interest in that now. I'm happy enough to steer clear of this guy for now. -OberRanks (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

OberRanks, since you've asked Mk5384 not to post to your talk page it would be courteous to not to discuss them here with others - when they have no avenue of rejoinder. If you both could voluntarily avoid commenting on eachother; and steer clear as much as possible - that would be helpful. Thanks, –xeno^talk 13:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think its only fair to point out that OberRanks was responding to my post, and didn't solicit my opinion on this matter. Parrot of Doom 14:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Noted. I just hope this matter can drop at this point. –xeno^talk 14:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be best. -OberRanks (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Rhye's and Fall of Civilization

I have nominated Rhye's and Fall of Civilization, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhye's and Fall of Civilization (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

MK

I already contacted a checkuser to see what can be done.—Kww(talk) 18:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Help with Talk:Iowa class battleship/GA1

TomStar81 said you may be able to help with the final outstanding critique on the avbove GAR. This article getting GA rating back is critical to saving the featured topic. Any assistance you can add referencing the armor of the Iowas would be greatly appreciated. bahamut0013^words_deeds 03:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Never really followed the battleship article that closely, but thanks for asking! -OberRanks (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, OberRanks. You have new messages at SarekOfVulcan's talk page.
Message added 21:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RFC

Don't suppose you'd like to revert any changes you made after people certified your statement, would you? I'm not sure what the rules are, but it doesn't seem quite kosher to me... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about that either. If it violated the rules, by all means, we can revert. -OberRanks (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Argh. What part of "Maybe you should disengage" "Ok, I will" said to keep editing the RFC?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't follow you on this one. The sections were in the wrong order so I merged them under the correct header and I made a grammar change. Didn't add any new material. On that note, what do you think about everything that's been going on? -OberRanks (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ober, I looked at your comments to Ken but I'm not sure that there's much to be done with them. The RFC has been laid out, covering much the same issues as these imply, and he clearly has read the RFC and its comments, and hopefully understands what's at stake. I'm not sure that adding anything to the RFC pages on this particular iteration of his continuing problems would do anything but inflame the situation, although I understand why you would be offended. Were I in your shoes, I would simply keep them in mind in the (unfortunate) case that this might need to be elevated to ANI or the ArbCom. — e. ripley\^talk 17:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. It would be best if I stayed out of the situation during this stage; I also doubt MK is going to change his behavior and you may be correct about the need for ARBCOM if things continue this way. -OberRanks (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Update

Hey, respect dude. I had almost forgotten about you (excuse me) and was quietly surprised and grateful to see your support comment as regards my editing at the ANI a couple of days ago. That is in the past now but hey, I said I would eat my hat if Polanski would be extradited to USA and I am hungry but not that hungry, what is going on? No news, I suspect an attempt at a deal to save face on both sides, he is there being good in Swiss and I don't see the authority there sending him to USA without a guarantee as to the outcome. I also think that if I was a lawyer would be confident that as mitigation of all the time on the run and the 50 plus days in jail in Swiss and all this time on tag in Swiss are enough punishment for an old man who's offender has had come out in support of Polanski. Thought on my eating my hat? Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad things worked out for you at ANI. That was a very strange thread. -OberRanks (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it was. Off2riorob (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Found this - Swissinfo - Polanski extradition decision to be announced Off2riorob (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Emergency topic ban

In the interests of actually getting this closed without making things worse, I am placing a temporary topic/interaction ban on you. You may not comment on or to Mk5384 in any venue on-Wiki until the RFC/community ban discussions have completed. This includes reformatting discussions. Violations will involve escalating blocks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a little heavy handed- you had merely to ask. You also have now given MK fuel as he will no doubt refer to this from now on that I was "banned" from associating with him. In any event, I just agreed to do the same thing on the talk page of the RfC. I would ask you to remove that "any venue" stipulation. If MK shows up on an article I'm associated with, that could cause problems. Its already happened on Alex Haley and Frank Buckles. -OberRanks (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

And blocked for 3 hours for "given MK fuel". What part of "do not comment on him" wasn't clear? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

OberRanks (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

No idea why I was just blocked. Sarek told me there was a ban on commenting about MK and I said that was fine in a response on my own talk page. Agreed to exactly the same thing on the RfC page. Not sure how I disobeyed that topic ban in any way.

Decline reason:

Emergency ban on discussing the other editor was extremely valid - and late coming. Your reply was to state that that user had been "given fuel" was a direct violation - all you need to say was "ok". 3 hr block is generously short (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Well, I do apologize. Fair is fair. I truly did not realize that a comment like that on my own talk page would be a violation. Everyone is right about this and it is in the best of all concerned to completely severe myself from this situation. That's what I plan to do. -OberRanks (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)