User talk:QueenofBattle/Archive 12/31/09

{{vacation}}

Welcome to the talk page for the Queen of Battle, where you can leave any messages for me. Please note that I reserve the right to delete any message after I have read it. If you have posted a message for me, and no longer find it on this page, it means I have read it. If I didn't respond here, on your talk page, or on the respective article's talk page, it means I am ignoring the message, which I also reserve the right to do. With that, let's get started.

.

Please Sign Your Posts

Archives

Archive 10/27/08

Archive 12/24/08

Archive 1/21/09

Archive 1/28/09

Archive 5/24/09

Archive 12/31/09

My political compass

Another Wikipedian turned me onto this fun website. From The Political Compass, I am Economic Left/Right: 6.75 (much more economically right than Joe Biden, a bit more than Sarah Palin, but slightly less than Margaret Thatcher) and Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.41 (about the same as Stephen Harper and the Pope, but only a bit more than Barack Obama). Interesting ideological company I keep, I guess...

Election day 2008

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		This barnstar is for every editor who assisted in accuracy, form, vandalism and POV fighting for Barack Obama for Election Day 2008, and who did it with civility, and just a dash of frustration and coriander. Moni3 (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football December 2008 Newsletter

The December 2008 issue of the College football 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.
Automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football January 2009 Newsletter

The January 2009 issue of the College football 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) 02:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject College football February 2009 Newsletter

The February 2009 issue of the College football 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) 02:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

ITN for Madoff Investment Scandal

On 12 March, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Madoff Investment Scandal, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts and copy-editing alerts.
• The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Kirill ^[pf] 00:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 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) 03:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Rollback enabled

Hi QueenofBattle!
I've seen you removing plenty of vandalism using the undo feature, so I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback can only be used to revert obvious vandalism, not good faith edits.
• Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Cheers, and happy editing! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 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) 00:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 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) 03:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing survey

Hi. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 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) 23:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		A big thanks for your revert on the United States Coast Guard article; you beat me to the revert by about 10 minutes. Again, thanks for your help in keeping the United States Coast Guard article error free! Cuprum17 (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

And yes, I do know what the Queen of Battle is... I spent the first 6 years of my military career in the Army. I wasn't in the infantry, but I worked to support them...Hooah!!! Cuprum17 (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Chief, and thanks for your service. As a member of the Coast Guard Auxiliary, I am proud to support the brave men and women of the USCG. Best, QueenofBattle (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the internal link to International Orange that you added to the CG Article. I think it will help to keep the arguements down that have regularly occured on the discussion page about whether it is red or orange in the Racing Stripe. The CG Color and Coating Manual specfies International Orange, but some joker will come along and edit the page, insisting it should be red. About half the time they are a Coastie who hasn't bothered to read the manual. Keep up the good work....You would make a good Coast Guardsman, Active or Reserve...give it some consideration. Cuprum17 (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, QoB, I joined the Coast Guard Reserve when I was 42 leaving 18 years to get 20 years of service for retirement in that included 3 years of Active Duty with the U.S. Army. At 44, they might let you join the Reserves IF... you had four years of Active duty or Selected Reserve time in any of the Armed Services. You have to be able to get 20 GOOD years of service in before age 60. I made it with 47 days to spare, but I had to make sure during those 18 years that I participated in at least 75% of my scheduled drills for the year and my two weeks of active duty for training each year. I always managed the drill at least 90% of my scheduled drills. The is check with a recruiter that KNOWS THE RESERVE SIDE OF THE RECRUITING BUSINESS. Many Coast Guard Recruiters are only interested in recruiting for the active side of the house and don't know all the ins and outs of the reserve recruiting rules. If you don't do anything, I want you to know that your Aux. time with the Coast Guard is certainly appreciated. I know the local Flotilla personnel where I was stationed certainly helped us with our Boating Safety mission and with Regatta patrol work. Thanks for your reply and stay Semper Paratus! Cuprum17 (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"Deface" is not derogatory.

"Deface", when used in the context of heradry and vexiollogy, is not derogatory. It means to superimpose an element onto a flag, arms, or symbol. For example, the flags of most British crown colonies are the British Blue Ensign (or, less commonly, the Red Ensign), defaced with the arms of the colony. U.S. military astronaut wings are the wings to which the astronaut is otherwise qualified, defaced with the astronaut pin in its centre.

I understand your point, but at Wikipedia, we used commonly understood terms, unless linking to the specific application of the term. So, for example, if you wish to link to Defacement (flag) in the article, that seems acceptable. But, remember, you still need a reliable source for your edits re: the CG Ensign. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama talk page

In response to your concerns, the underlying issue on the Obama talk page is that some obvious trolls / sockpuppets are provoking trouble. After a long period without such incidents, several new / WP:SPA accounts started unproductive discussions in almost identical tone and syntax, and brought similar bogus complaints to WP:AN/I. If it had been me I would have politely explained to the suspicious new editors that the material is inappropriate, asked if there are any objections, and if none (other than the suspicious accounts) I would have closed the discussions politely after a few days. However, that's not what happened. Several people watching the page closed them rapidly, in a less than ideal way, accusing them of being trolls and sockpuppets in the closing comments, and in one case a seemingly unaware / inexperienced editor was taunting one of the trolls on their user page. That kind of stuff from both sides is best toned down quietly and with as little fuss and antagonism as possible. Seeing the page in that state, and aware that someone recently increased the archive time considerably, I decided to tone down the drama by grouping and collapsing the already-collapsed discussions. That's a judgment call. If you disagree, you're free to discuss on my talk page or some other meta page, but getting into a disagreement on the Obama talk page over how to handle trolls, and saying that it looks like censorship, etc., is only going to make the situation more heated. There have already been 2-3 AN/I reports, and now what looks like an Arbcom motion, over what should be an extremely simple, straightforward issue of dealing with a handful of inapt discussions started by bogus accounts. Wikidemon (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I respect your judgment, but disagree with your actions. I think that grouping everything up only adds fuel to a quickly smoldering anew fire. I try to live by the motto that "we can't control how people treat us, only how we react." I think the appropriate course of action is to close the unproductive discussions (although not prematurely), and let them be archived. Anyone reading the talk page can easily see who are the trolls, who is making an ass of themselves (with snarky closing comments), and who is being overly partisan. The rhetoric can be amped down by avoiding the name-calling and finger-pointing. For example, if one is a troll, I don't need to be told they are a troll by another; I can see it for myself. It's interesting to me that many of the editors who are so quick to close "unproductive" discussions are nowhere to be found in the edit history of the main article, hence what looks like some to be an overly protective type of censorship. So, I'll leave it with this discussion and my comments already included in the article's talk page. But, please consider if there is a better, more transparent way to accomplish your goals. Best, QueenofBattle (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure... Thanks for your thoughts, and I tend to agree. But I came upon it when it was already messy. What I was really closing were the unhelpful closing comments. I didn't think we needed to see people accuse each other of being trolls there on the page. Just like the discussions themselves, those comments could have been ignored. But they weren't. Better just to move on. I think we have to ask (in a friendly way) that people not disparage each other, not even the trolls, on article talk pages. Wikidemon (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. We are in agreement. QueenofBattle (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not battle

I am in the process of discussing it with the editor involved. He doesn't disagree yet. If he agrees with me, it stays off. Please do not create fights or drama. If he really wants it, it goes back up. He did not realize that Obama talk page is so controversial. User F203 (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter why you refractored his comments. If he wants to delete them, he may (or strike through them), but you should not. Talk pages are records of the discussion, and we don't do anything in secret here, even when well intentioned. So, I object to you deleting his comments from the talk page and you should not do so. QueenofBattle (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

His comments will create fighting and drama. I discussed it with him. He has not put back his comments. Please do not create drama. User F203 (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You should know that this is not how we do things here. I have added comments to the talk page and they should stay. Secrecy creates drama; transparency does not. QueenofBattle (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The original editor said sorry. If you persist in adding it back, then you are edit warring and creating conflict. Please do not. That other person is an administrator.User F203 (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

All are equal here, adminstrators and new editors alike. I have added my own comment to the talk page. I might suggest that you approach these things with a bit less, umm, dogmatic persistence. Good luck editing. QueenofBattle (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have asked that you be blocked if you create drama. User F203 (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll treat the last comment as a bit of humor, as I'm confident that's how you meant it. ;) QueenofBattle (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Lucas and Boutwell

Hey QueenofBattle! Page 6 of the pdf file has the attorney general mentioning an interview with Sheriff Boutwell at the Williamson County Jail. just under the introduction and in the history (within the first paragraph). Also, I have seen the interviews with Boutwell and Lucas. I have a photograph for comparison from my Whitman files showing Officer McCoy, who killed Whitman, Officer Conner, who was in the tower and assisted with the wounded and dead, and the same Jim Boutwell who is in the TV interviews standing next to the airplane. I can put a few more references there as well if you like.--Victor9876 (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your revert and posted this interview that has Boutwell and Lucas talking - Lucas in part 2 mentions that Boutwell and he were like "father and son". The link is a playlist, so the entire interviews with all principals should run the entire series. From the "Horses mouths" as they say in West Texas. I also tried to condense the link to put a Documentary header, but I can't find the list of references in the edit mode.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myPfHsjfxFs&feature=PlayList&p=3886D42618B39B60&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=5

--Victor9876 (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the source. I edited the passage a bit and moved it down to the exisiting discussion of his time in Williamson County. QueenofBattle (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears this task force issue is an article unto itself. My impression is that a separate article could go more into detail about how Lucas' pathology and the pathology of the Texas Rangers created the story and myths about Lucas.--Victor9876 (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Coast Guard Auxiliary Training Leadership Collegiate Program

I removed the reference to the Coast Guard Auxiliary University Detachment Program under the "Coast Guard ROTC" section because it could potentially be misread to imply that the Coast Guard or the Coast Guard Auxiliary operate a program called "ROTC" or one that grants a military commission. This is not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewdwelch (talk • contribs) 20:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

George W. Bush edit

Exactly how was my edit unconstructive? If you take a look at the articles about other living former presidents, such as Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, it says they "served as the 39th/41st/42nd president of the United States." All I was doing was changing the article about George W. Bush to say that he "served as the 43rd president of the United States", instead of saying he "was the 43rd president of the United States." That way, it is more similar to the articles about the other former living presidents. --Joker123192 (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Because in this next edit 60 seconds later you removed sourced material about him being the 46th Governor of Texas. So, the deletion of sourced, relevant material combined with including the dates he was president, when it is already in the infobox right next to the paragraph, seems unconstructive. QueenofBattle (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Then why don't I just change it to say that he served as the 43rd president of the United States, but still have it include that he was also the 46th Governor of Texas prior to serving as president? Would that be okay?--Joker123192 (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 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) 20:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Legion of Merit

If you're going to go around and delte everything I post on an article, why don't you pay attention to what you're deleting. You undid my post not because it didn't fit the criteria(at least your opinion of what the criteria is), but because you feel it's your job to follow me around and undo my posts. Go back and read the Notable Recipients section again. You'll find a lot of names on there with no connected pages or absolutely nothing but a name. Did you delete their name off there? NO! You only deleted what I posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wforte (talk • contribs) 18:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You will see that I have removed all recipients where no notability is indicated. While it is honorable that someone apparently related to you was awarded the Legion of Merit, Wikipedia is about notability. Also, your vandalism at Presidency of Barack Obama doesn't help your cause much. Thanks. QueenofBattle (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There was no vandalism on the Presidency of Barack Obama page. Those are facts that the Liberal media has made so many people think are inaccurate. The proof is there, he even states it in his books. How you people can ignore things like that that are staring you in the face is beyond me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wforte (talk • contribs) 18:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are referring to when you write "you people", but I'm confident you are not referring to me. I am a fiscally conservative capitalist, but I also don't like anyone using Wikipedia as a soapbox, which is what your edits have attempted to do. I would suggest you refresh yourself with Wiki's sourcing policies. QueenofBattle (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 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) 20:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Texas Ranger Division history section

Am I going mad tonight? The section does not editing down, it has been moved because the page was too large (67 kb). What does need writing is a few paragraphs that summarise the history, which can be found in full on History of the Texas Ranger Division. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 21:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The correct process for splitting articles (if the consensus is that they need splitting) can be found at WP:Split. In summary, 1) we don't do it uniliaterally, 2) we don't merely deleted the content in the main articles and add an expand tag, and 3) we can't just cut and paste the text into the new article (for various reasons such as lost history and a few licensing reasons). Thanks. QueenofBattle (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't lecture me. What I did was perfectly acceptable, the entire process was compliant with WP:SPLIT where being WP:BOLD is endorsed. Compliant edit summaries were included. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 21:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:BOLD's brother is to please be careful. Would discussing the split first hurt anything? Also, messing up a FA by adding an expand tag doesn't seem to make too much sense. QueenofBattle (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Discuss it if you want, but I have a feeling that you're not going to reach any other conclusion :P By the way - if it wasn't 11pm over here and I didn't have a cold, I would have written a replacement History section. I'll do it tomorrow if that's OK? ninety:one (reply on my talk) 22:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but a little discussion seems to be the best course to me; I'll take my chances. ;) Get better quickly. Thanks. 22:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks again! ninety:one (reply on my talk) 17:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

USC 2002 Defense

Re: 2002 Defense USC, there is no statistic that I can find supporting that they were the "top defense" as article suggest - even if, there is no citation nthere, of the four major defensive statistically categories, USC does not rank at the top of any for 2002. http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/natlRank.jsp?year=2002&div=4&site=org Onyewu22 (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC) onyewu22

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 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) 02:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

George H. W. Bush

You may be interested: Talk:George H. W. Bush#Public image. Your input is valuable. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Er

I was the one being called the racist, not the other way around. :) Tarc (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops, my apologies. I guess I didn't read the whole "racist allegations" and multiracial string closely enough. QueenofBattle (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's all good, thread's closed-up now, though a drive-by IP reverted it for a few for some reason. JohnH lurking perhaps? Tarc (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, QueenofBattle. You have new messages at A8UDI's talk page.
Message added 15:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A8UDI talk 15:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

FEMA Article

Come back when you know how to comply with Wikipedia rules and policy. As your previous comments contain no material that helps improve the article, instead offering a digg at the original poster with your X-Files comment. Something that is actually against the rules. While mine are discussing your ridiculous reasoning behind dismissing such information about FEMA camps to the article. You have been reported for your against the rules reverts, so do not attempt to undermine me with veiled threats that have no merit. 203.171.199.156 (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Sutter Cane

You should be aware that I have reported your behavior to the 3RR noticeboard here. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep your pointless threats to yourself. Not only have you now filed a false report, knowingly, along with your previous against policy actions, but I have reported you again. This time along with your false report and your insults to the original poster. Come back when you know and follow Wikipedia policy. And keep these ridiculous comments to yourself, they clutter my talk page. 203.171.199.156 (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Well, I guess we'll just wait and see what happens... QueenofBattle (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

As an update, user 203.171.199.156 has been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule and using a talk page as a forum. Also, as an example of a classic refusal to get the point, the user also had two other IP addresses blocked for one month each for first attempting to evade the original block, and then secondly attempting to evade the second block. The entire time, the user has denied being blocked, accused me of lying about the blocks, and found several other ways to be disruptive. Go figure; a liar accusing someone else of lying. QueenofBattle (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

National championships

QueenofBattle,

Since you are one of the major editors and defenders of the National Championships article, I wanted to get your opinion on the insertion of the table of claimed championships currently in my sandbox into the article, especially since it is such a large addition. I'm also thinking of cutting the table in the CFBDW section with "Current FBS schools" that essentially duplicates the table above it. I'd appreciate any input you might have before I make these edits. Thank you! CrazyPaco (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

USCGAUX

Ok! ;) --Nicola Romani (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi QueenofBattle, can you help me please with this page Uniforms of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary‎? I've uploaded all the pics showing the various uniform tipes... but now need some description and my English is very bad! :( Thank you in advance. --Nicola Romani (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I will; I'd be happy to help. I'll work on it over the next few days. QueenofBattle (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 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) 20:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia and need advice

I created my first article and now have a user who is vandalizing the site on a daily basis and is clearly biased. His postings are personal and I have noticed in his talk section you have consoled him for conflict of interest. Is there anything that can be done to stop this (aside from fixing the page each day)? As I said I am new to Wiki so I am not sure how to communicate with other members. 22015va 11/10/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22015va (talk • contribs) 00:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. A few pieces of advice:

• Don't get discouraged by the actions of others. Most editors here at Wikipedia are well-intentioned folk who care about creating a unique encyclopedia. Unfortunately, there are a few who disrupt Wikipedia for their our purposes or aims. I attempt to ignore them as much as possible.
• Inappropriate behavior of other editors can be reported to administrators at various noticeboards. For edit warring and 3RR (which looks to be what you have at the SGAUS page), you can file a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Keep in mind that the 3RR rules prevent anyone from making several reverts in a 24-hour period, so if you are reporting a user for edit warring he/she will probably get blocked, but if you had several reverts you will likely get a brief block, as well. The Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts noticeboard is helpful for getting some administrative attention related to poor etiquette and content disputes. Lastly, you can avail yourself (and the article, really) to a request for comment from other editors at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Often, because we work in a collaborative environment, getting the thoughts and input from several others can help.
• Use the article's talk page for discussions about the content of the article. Insist on reliable sourcing, and provide reliable sourcing for your edits. That's the best way for content disputes to reach a reasonable conclusion.

I will put a template on your talk page welcoming you to Wikipedia with links to several other helpful tools. I will also watch the page in question and intercede where I see editors running afoul of how we try to do things here. Again, welcome. QueenofBattle (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance. I would welcome offer to watch the State Guard Association of the United States article. I have only been using Wikipedia for a week and do not find the features very intuitive. The user who keeps posting "rump" and "private" militia comments seems to have extensive experience with Wikipedia. He has posted that he has been a member of SGAUS since 2003. The SGAUS organization supports the creation and maintenance of regulated state defense forces established by state governments under the authority of 32 USC 109 and National Guard Bureau Regulation 10-4. SGAUS does not advocate or support "rump" or "private" militias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22015va (talk • contribs) 16:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

SGAUS Article

I think the warring approach might be best. I started the process but backed out because I was not sure how to fill all the fields in the edit screen. I fear that I will run afoul of Wiki rules because I lack experience (I'm off to Boarders Books tonight to see if I can find a How To Wiki book). Thank you for your help and guidance.

I have been watching your edits to the SGAUS page and wanted to let you know I think they are great! Thanks for taking the time. I hope user Todd Gallagher does not delete them all tonight. That has been my frustration.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 22015va (talk • contribs) 16:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been adding some items (regulations section) and some text to the chapters section. The chapters (often Inc. non-profits) are separate from the actual defense force. Again - thanks for all your help and oversight! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22015va (talk • contribs) 19:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The vandal is back. This is getting to exhausting - perhaps it would be best to delete the article.22015va (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Just saw your message about the rollback tool. I will stand aside. I'm too new Wikipedia to compete here.22015va (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I am going to take a break. You go through and see what citations are legit. I will be back later. I have been around Wikipedia long enough not to screw with sites. I have started several and edit several. If you want to mediate this site with the SGAUS, go for it. Our constant edit war is not going to help. As I said, review the citations two editors, one anonymous and one with a username, are trying to block. All info I have posted is LITERALLY from the SGAUS.org website or from an SGAUS chapter website. No original research at all.Todd Gallagher (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Good. That's all I wanted in the first place. Some edits are valid, but in the process you keep deleting or reverting other stuff that was just plain wrong, grammatically or otherwise, which is vandalism. I'll look through it and try to fairly sort through the sources. I have no dog in this hunt, per se; I have a federal commission. QueenofBattle (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that a consensus is being reached here. SGAUS does not establish chapters, it works with local chapters (i.e. the Virginia State Guard Association, Inc) is separate from SGAUS and the Virginia State Defense Force. No one group has any control over the creation or conduct of an other. The District of Columbia Defense Force, Inc. for example is a non-profit group, not a corporate part of SGAUS (separate entities). The table of state links should clearly show that those links are to state entities and not SGAUS chapters (i.e. the South Carolina State Guard link is to a .gov site and is not part of SGAUS). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22015va (talk • contribs) 05:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

New pages have been added to SGAUS website. The cached files on web.archive.org are out of date and no longer accessible. These changes do not touch on the controversial issues of last week.22015va (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Todd Gallagher: This is not censorship. You continue to use the words "private militia" and link to obsolete web pages that are not part of the organizations website. Additionally, your actions are malicious and pure vandalize. You undo all edits (even typo corrections) vice focusing the discussion on the content of the article. For example, the SGAUS state associations & state chapter relationships are clearly explained in ref [1] but you keep deleting the reference. Current site or archived, the ref is the same but you keep deleting it. You seem to have a clear bias against this organizations as an admitted member. Delete, undo, and cry censorship all you want - SGAUS does not support "private/rump militias" and you know it. SGAUS recognizes state associations - why do you keep deleting their mention and my current references? You would maintain/gain credibilty if your were to review my edits (one at a time) and read each cite before deleting everthing with the "undo" command. That is counter productive.22015va (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.111.116 (talk)

9 Billion Lost

I was unable to find the moved article edit. I did find a brief mention that 9 billion was lost in funding. Are we allowed to ask questions on the talk page? There is no mention or explanation why the U.S. invaded Iraq. Why was this not allowed to be discussed? {Cmguy777 (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)}

I moved it here and here. There is no mention or explanation as to why the U.S. invaded Iraq in Bush's BLP, because it is not relevant or germane to his BLP. The stated reasons, however, are discussed in full here. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

22015va

22015va is trying to remove the history of the SGAUS by editing the archive.org information. He has now blocked archive.org from releasing the history of SGAUS.org and is now challenging the sources of the information linking the SGAUS to private militias. This is clearly attempted censorship.Todd Gallagher (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Todd Gallagher: This is not censorship. You continue to use the words "private militia" and link to obsolete web pages that are not part of the organizations website. Additionally, your actions are malicious and pure vandalize. You undo all edits (even typo corrections) vice focusing the discussion on the content of the article. For example, the SGAUS state associations & state chapter relationships are clearly explained in ref [2] but you keep deleting the reference. Current site or archived, the ref is the same but you keep deleting it. You seem to have a clear bias against this organizations as an admitted member. Delete, undo, and cry censorship all you want - SGAUS does not support "private/rump militias" and you know it. SGAUS recognizes state associations - why do you keep deleting their mention and my current references? You would maintain/gain credibilty if your were to review my edits (one at a time) and read each cite before deleting everthing with the "undo" command. That is counter productive.22015va (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"Rising Star" issue

Sorry for bringing this here, but I thought it would be better than raising on the article Talk page. I agree with your view on the unencyclopedic nature of the term "Rising Star", and think there's consensus from the other editors on that. The text has varied a bit over time, slightly confusing things (I, for one, thought things were settled already). I suspect most aren't commenting because they're tired of the issue (I certainly am). What else can be done? There was an RFC that is technically still open (and before that, a proposed change which, again, there seemed to be consensus to). Any ideas? Cheers --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, my friend. I like to AGF, but one particular editor seems hell-bent on having things his/her way. I think we are well into fanaticism and tenetious editing on his/her part. I think the current text is fine, without the "rising star" language. While it appears in several reliable sources (apparently) its use has garnered too much controversy. I think the RfC expires naturally after 30 days. The consensus to me, also, seems to be for the current text sans "rising star", but again there is not full agreement. So, I guess we keep trying to reach a compromise that all can live with, or we are clear with certain editors that "enough is enough" on this subject. There are dispute resolution protocols for editors who refuse to get the point. I am always leery to apply them, though, as I like the community to be open and edit freely. But, we are getting nowhere with this. QueenofBattle (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your points, particularly that, even though available in some WP:RS, the quote feeds controversy regarding article neutrality. Perhaps this can end when the RFC expires. No need for the talkback template, but thanks! Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Continuing SGAUS Saga

Q-Battle - I was hoping that an equilibrium had been reached with User: Todd Gallagher but it seems there are still problems. I understand that opposing views are part of Wikipedia and help make it better but this user keeps deleting all edits when objecting to one section.

I have made every effort to adapt my edits when critiqued and try to respond to immediate suggestions made by senior Wiki users.

I have added several cites (example) [3] to only find a whole night's tweaking to be dumped. I am not trying to "hide" or "censor" this users, but SGAUS does not support "private/rump" militias. User: Todd Gallagher is making very hard to create a meaningful article that is not jaded with cherry-picked entries that are supported by out of date links which are taken out of context.

User: Todd Gallagher continues to state that this is a history, perhaps he could limit his history issues in an objective way in the history section you created rather than dump all edits to restore his rambling.

Respectfully, 22015va (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the two of you have a content dispute, which crafty editing by third-party editors can only help so much. Most of my edits have been further edited or reverted by one of the two of you to further your individual points of view. I think you both need to work out your differences first, before I can help. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thought you might like to know...

This[4]

I have the book in front of me. It's a passing mention, neither positive nor negative, but there you are in print now! It was an aside about your adding a speedy delete tag to the Criticism of George W. Bush article.

Incidentally, thanks for going the extra mile to be nice to all of us the past few days. Not that you weren't before, just noticing now.... - Wikidemon (talk) 03:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, pretty cool...I guess. Thanks for the heads up. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Popeye

I removed Popeye from the list of Notable Coast Guardsmen, again. I agree that Popeye should never be left out but he was the only fictional character on the list and he's already mentioned immediately below under Popular Culture. New Hampshirite (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, got it. Thanks. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

For some reason…

You must of forgot to sign your latest comment on Talk:Barack Obama but Signbot decided it wasn’t going to fix that for you. Bah, it isn’t perfect, no one is, bot or human.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, weird. Thanks, I went back and signed the comment. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama

While President Obama's approval rating dropping below 50% may be noteworthy(and it is), the number cited was incorrect(none of the links provided gave 48% as the number). Also, all of the poll numbers probably belong in the Presidency of Barack Obama, and/or the Obama approval articles. As do many of the new entries being added in the Barack Obama article. At least that's what I believe. Also, I meant no offense with my comment on the Obama Talk page, so sorry if it came across the wrong way. DD2K (talk) 01:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

First, no worries about the talk page comments; I took no offense. Secondly, while I am apt to agree with you, dropping below 50% the first time is significant for any president (I corrected it to 49%), and I think has a place in the BLP as well as in the other articles you cite. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the quick response. I suppose if we are going to have the high polling numbers there, it definitely should be mentioned that his number dropped below 50%. My concern was if/when it climbs back up over 50%, and then drops again, and climbs again, that we have too many entries about the polling. In any case, you're right. We can deal with that if/when it happens. Thanks again. DD2K (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but this is the first time, that Obama's popularity is under 50%, so we should mention this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.146.208 (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Zaferk

Just a note: the templates you removed from the user's page are fine, if the user wants to call themselves a 'Master Editor' that's alright - he/she has just as much of a right to define 'Master Editor' as Wikipedia:Service awards does (they both have none). As long as the user isn't representing 'Master Editor' as some position of authority, having the template on the userpage is ok. You could perhaps argue they should remove the link, but that would be pushing it. Prodego ^talk 04:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Please be careful

Friendly caution here. You're on your third reversion right now with the Obama campaign wording. I know it must be frustrating and I'm slightly on your side regarding the content, but reverting while talking probably makes people dig in their heels, and I wouldn't want to see you get into trouble shy of 4RR due to the article probation. Cheers, - Wikidemon (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I am frustrated at the obstinence of two editors (one in particular) who are editing while yelling by declaring victory and consensus where there is none. If this minor modification can survive, I see no more reason for me to edit the section. QueenofBattle (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Barack Obama

Please understand the hostility wasn't directed at you. I just don't think we should waste time seriously considering adding what are effectively Republican party-line smears to an FA. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 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) 19:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Matt Leinart

I don't understand your resistance to including a wikilink from this article to the more detailed article at 2005 Southern California vs. Notre Dame football game. I have made a post at Talk:Matt Leinart to discuss this.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I have responded at the article's talk page. QueenofBattle (talk) 19:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)