Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:32, 1 April 2010

The OBERRANKS TALK PAGE

• User talk:OberRanks/Archive 1
• User talk:OberRanks/Archive 2

The talk page for my former account "Husnock" also redirects here

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

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. Misplaced Pages 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 01:15, 24 March 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:Misplaced Pages 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)

ANI

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#OberRanks --NeilN 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 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. Misplaced Pages: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 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 carrots→ 16:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)