Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:30, 2 November 2013

Welcome!

Hello, YahwehSaves, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Anupam 01:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Reasons why you should join WikiProject Christianity: Obtain answers to your questions about Christianity on the noticeboard (watch) Work side by side with friendly and welcoming editors who are passionate about Christianity Free subscription to our informative newsletter Explore Christianity in depth with one of our 30 specialty groups Get recognition for your hard work and valuable contributions Find out how to get your article promoted Featured class at the Peer Review Department Choose from a collection of over 55,000 articles to improve Join today!

Sock Puppet

Template:IPsock

Matt Urban

Hi, I can't find any source where I can verify the spelling of Matt Urban's original surname. I noticed you changed it from Urbanowicz to Urbanowitz. Are you related to Urban or knew him? Elizium23 (talk) 05:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Source: "The Matt Urban Story", 1989, by Lt. Colonel Matt Urban/Charles Conrad

May 2011

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Regarding your edits to Matt Urban, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Audie Murphy, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the "Controversy" section of Matt Urban to its state from several days ago. Your edits to that section in particular have removed any trace of controversy and any mention of Audie Murphy. You really need to use the "Preview" function more and contain your edits to a manageable scale. You also need to stop editing your own comments on talk pages because it seems extremely unproductive. Talk pages are a record of conversation, and they show what you said in a comment at one point in time. Most editors do not go back for weeks afterwards to continually refine a comment once made, unless a grievous error was committed and they need to make a retraction. Furthermore, despite several requests from me to provide reliable sources for your edits, and knowing that you have at least two books in hand that you could cite, your failure to include inline citations for the facts in this article is disappointing. Please make an effort to include citations in your next edits, this is a biography and it makes some extraordinary claims, which I know can be backed up when you have the very source in hand. Elizium23 (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Matt Urban, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You know, you're not a bad editor, and I sort of regret giving you the above warning, but you really need to work together with the other editors involved in the articles where you work with an eye for improving the text. Not just updating it more and more every day you log in. Work toward a finished copy with the wording you want and inline references that back up your assertions. You can't keep editing sections to distill statements into nothingness, particularly in regards to the Audie Murphy controversy. That is an important section that should either be expanded with references, or left intact. Please, please slow down, add some references since you are lucky to have the books in hand, and work with us here. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Llewellyn Morris Chilson

Thanks for your additions. I did a bit of formatting after you, see my changes here. JORGENEV 23:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that headlines should use headline formatting (). JORGENEV 07:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

CAN you add a photo of Liewellyn Chilson?

I suggest > http://www.cprofota.com/images/ChilsonPortrait.BPB Sorry its > http://www.cprofota.com/images/ChilsonPortrait.BMP

Hey, I would very much like to. However when looking for images to upload to Misplaced Pages we need to be sure that they are under appropriate licensing (free licensing as per Misplaced Pages:Image use policy) and I see no copyright information there and no way to contact the owner. JORGENEV 06:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Please someone, add an appropriate page photo for of Chilson.

October 2011

Welcome to Misplaced Pages and thank you for your contributions. However, I noticed that your username (YahwehSaves) may not meet Misplaced Pages's username policy because it appears to state as fact a hotly-contested opinion. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account to use for editing. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think his username is perfectly acceptable. JORGENEV 06:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. There are many users with the name Yahweh, God, Buddah, Jesus, Allah, Satan, et cetera. This username does not mislead, promote, offend, or disrupt Misplaced Pages. Granted, the purpose of Misplaced Pages is to provide an objective encyclopedia, their allowance of free-will and liberty only promotes a username indicating one's higher-power and other discussable usernames (Christ, Savior, Lucifer, Demon, Devil, Pastafarian {Flying Spaghetti Monsterism}, alcohol, marijuana, motorcycle). In my opinion, this username is in accordance with Misplaced Pages's username policy. Bullmoosebell (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I also expressed my doubt to the accusing editor, who inexplicably responded that it is "disruptive and promotional". But not to worry, this incident has been reviewed by an administrator and shown to be innocent. Elizium23 (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Redacting your comments

I am going to start reverting you when you change your own talk page comments. According to WP:REDACT it is unacceptable to substantially change your comments after they have been replied to. Please do not edit your own comments without indicating the change in an acceptable manner. Elizium23 (talk) 05:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Drastic changes to articles on South Vietnamese military decorations

These articles are written using the proper terminology of the era. The medal names are given as they were used by the country which awarded them, which names did NOT use the term "Republic of Vietnam". Do not make drastic changes like these to articles of long standing without discussing them first on the talk pages of the articles in question. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) is/was officially used by the U.S. military for Viet Nam (Vietnam).

But the question is what the country awarding the medal, the RoV, called the medal; not what a foreign country (i.e., us) called the Republic of Vietnam. I repeat: medal names are given as they were used by the country which awarded them, not what somebody else called or calls them. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.79.31.20 (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC) The Republic of Viet-Nam (RVN not RoV) is on the award citation of the Gallantry Cross (Vietnamese Gallantry Cross) which I did refer to the medal as more than once.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

South Vietnam medal names

FYI, take a look at this if you want official name for South Vietnamese medals: Medals and Decorations of the Republic of Vietnam Armed Forces - South Vietnam - 1967. A publication by the government of South Vietnam. It would not be necessary for the Vietnamese to call the a medal Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Medal. The just call it Civil Actions Medal. Ask your self this question. What do Chinese people call Chinese food? The just call if food. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I am was following the military editing of awards. The Vietnamese government did not put Vietnam or South Vietnam on the medal award citation but officially "Republic of Viet Nam", Gallantry Cross; RVN not RoV. Its the Vietnamese Gallantry Cross; Vietnamese Gallantry Cross with Palm. Its not a "South Vietnam" publication of their awards but a "Republic of Vietnam" publication. Strange, some editors abuses are ignored and allowed, and I'm questioned (about food)?

Apparently you missed the reference I linked in my comment. It is a scan of an official document published by the government of the Republic of Vietnam. That is what I was using to figure out medal names. If you are using some type of certificate to judge medal names and their capitalization you may be mislead. In reviewing the US Army's Institute of Heraldry website they also add the county name, but that is likely necessary to differentiate that it is from a foreign power and not from the US.

If you want to mince words over South Vietnam versus Republic of Vietnam all I can say is that Republic of Vietnam redirects to South Vietnam on Misplaced Pages. I imagine that is by community consensus. Misplaced Pages's WP:NPOV guidelines likely guided that decision. Remember at that period of time there were two entities calling themselves Vietnam and both believe themselves to the the legitimate government of the country.

If you are accusing me of abuses I would appreciate if you pointed them out, or if they are egregious take them to WP:AIV. When communicating with you I am doing my best to assume good faith. That is why I pointed out the source that I was basing my view upon. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't have good faith, I useded the link above you that yourself refered to (official RVN document) and quoted from it for what the gallantry cross is awarded for and you undid it and then accuse me of what you do. And the same source quote is/was in TALK.

Hey gang, with respect to this user for which we seem to having some difficulty, let me just say that the web-link up there is an AMAZING find. It should be linked and used as a major source for any article of Vietnamese medals. -OberRanks (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Stop it

Your changes are not improvements. Stop, or you will be blocked from editing. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

My changes (improvements) are as good as anyone elses if not better, including yours, least I don't use (or tell others to use like was done to me) innaccurate references with inncorrect or false information as facts.

You and another editor for example had determined Urban was Jewish despite multible references saying he was of "Polish heritage" (Misplaced Pages bio) based on a false reference which was got to be used to uncivilly discredit me intentionally and to repeatly disrupt (undo) by work to Help Improve the Article and pull in a like minded adminstrator against me. Fact is, Urban himself is not from Poland (one who came from Poland and became a citizen). For saying that I was bashed by the editor(?).

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Ernie Banks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vol. II (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone else had put that CD reference in there, I don't think its helps the article.

Someone else can edit " In 1977....

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Baseball

I have dropped your name at the project discussion page. You may join in the discussion if you want to. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Babe Ruth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Unconscious

Billy Williams (left fielder) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rookie of the Year

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive Edits

Template:IPsock Based on your editing pattern I believe that you are 75.79.31.20. As Eric Serge mentioned to you, be sure to log in so that it is easier to communicate with you. Communication is important since editing here at Misplaced Pages requires that we build consensus to achieve our aims and goals. Additionally, ensure you are adhering to the policies and guidelines by discussing non-consensual edits on the article's talk page prior to making such edits, so as to prevent edit wars. Bullmoosebell (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

Hi. When you recently edited Valor device, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Distinguished Flying Cross (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

Hi. When you recently edited Arrowhead device, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Campaign, Expedition and Native American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Award star (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Meritorious Service Medal, Distinguished Flying Cross and Distinguished Service Medal

Naval Star Awards (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Meritorious Service Medal, Distinguished Flying Cross and Distinguished Service Cross

Service star (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to DoD, Rays and World War I Victory Medal

Oak leaf cluster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Meritorious Service Medal and Distinguished Flying Cross

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

JMUA

I've left you a message on the Award star talk page. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Sign your posts

Don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages so your post can be identified. This can be accomplished by simply typing four tildes (~~~~). Regards, Bullmoosebell (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Signing posts

I'm thinking it may be confusing to you when we're discussing "signing posts". Do you realize that every time you've posted a comment on a talk page (like the 5/16 inch star article), it's been unsigned? And that other users have been manually coming along behind you and adding something to indicate who wrote the text that you wrote? It's very easy to fix this, you just add four tildes (~~~~) to the very end of your posting, and presto, Misplaced Pages automatically signs your posted comments. Please respond to let me know if either 1) you understand what I'm talking about, or 2) this is still confusing to you. Thanks! AzureCitizen (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. When you recently edited "V" Device, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Distinguished Flying Cross (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Hello User:YahwehSaves, I received your message recently. If you do believe that you are being hounded, you could bring up the situation to the administrator's noticeboard. However, perhaps the user who is reverting you, honestly finds some of your edits to be problematic; I would recommend discussing the situation with that user first before going to the noticeboard. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 05:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

YahwehSaves (a.k.a. sockpuppet 75.79.31.20), you are not being singled-out by me, you are being analyzed by many editors and administrators because you continue to make make disruptive edits. You have been educated on the policies & guidelines andmanual of style (to include use of an article's talk page "to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors") on numerous occasions. You've been warned, even blocked from editing for periods of time, because of your disruptive edits and choice to ignore the policies & guidelines and manual of style.

Additionally, you make shadowing edits without logging into your account, which is sockpuppeting (another violation), and thatIP address has been punished previously as well.

You are not new. In more than 13 months of editing, rather than educating yourself on & adhering to the publications you've been provided, you've chosen to continue your disruptive edits, and even engaged in edit warring (another violation). Having done so, you've lost much credibility in the Misplaced Pages community.

Now, because you are being warned with punishment again and each of your edits are being scrutinized, you are taking this personal and displaying and offensive posture with insults (another violation). Research the publications you've been provided with, then follow the information provided. If you require further education, please see the principles of Misplaced Pages. Bullmoosebell (talk) 09:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as seen in Ira Hayes, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Elizium23 (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Jesus. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. SÆdon 07:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

A little help

Misplaced Pages:Referencing for beginners. I hope this helps. Bullmoosebell (talk) 10:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, such as on Talk:United States military award devices, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. EricSerge (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 20

Hi. When you recently edited Airlift Device, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clasp (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Medal of Honor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Air Force Cross (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Dealey vs. Murphy

Hi - You've edited the Samuel David Dealey page to say he "is the highest decorated American serviceman of the war." The Audie Murphy page says Murphy "was the most highly decorated American soldier in World War II." There is a distinction between "serviceman" and "soldier" but there is also a distinction to be made between number of different awards and the number of high awards for valor. I think we need a third way to say it, particularly since the DSC and the MOH are for the same action. (See the controversy.) Thoughts? JMOprof (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I changed introduction to, he, Dealey, "is one of the most decorated American servicemen for valor of the war". Sub commanders Sam Dealey and Eugene Fluckey (MOH+4-NC's) are at least 2 servicemen more highly decorated for WWII than Murphy is.
Not all military awards are decorations and not all combat decorations are awarded for valor. The foreign combat decorations may be awarded for the same action as an American combat decoration was awarded for. Audie Murphy got several foreign decorations like the Legion of Honor for the same action as his Medal of Honor. For the last few years, any living WWII veteran who served in France can get the Legion of Honor medal officially from France.
Matt Urban and Llwellyn Chilson, both combat infantrymen WWII (France), were awarded more combat decorations by the US Army for WWII than Audie Murphy was awarded and Chilson has more Army combat decorations for valor than Murphy has. Both Chilson (3-DSC's..) and Urban (MOH...) received some US combat decorations after WWII for WWII (Chilson 7 at one time by Truman). Urban who has more combat decorations (7-PH's...) than Murphy, is still not awarded for his own personal 1-man recon mission in North Africa that destroyed (he destroyed) one of Rommel's field communication centers saving who knows how many lives.

Hi - it would appear that the Murphy article needs an update. ☺ WW2 Army lore isn't my specialty, it's WW2 submarine warfare. It was my edit that moved Fluckey and Dealey to notability in your improved Navy Cross page (thank you). I was thinking of moving John D. Bulkeley there with a MOH, DSC, and two Navy Crosses, but the informal threshold seems to be 5 first and second tier awards. It you moved him up, I certainly wouldn't take him out. (Did you see the notability discussion on the talk page?) I do agree that repetitive medals of greater distinction trump more medals of mixed distinction. I don't know that your original call on Dealey was wrong but I thought it brooked argument. Thanks. JMOprof (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Medal of Honor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Officer, Valor, Posthumous, Firefight and Old Ironsides

Roy M. Davenport (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Valor

Samuel David Dealey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Wolfpack

Silver Star (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Valor

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Medal of Honor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Japanese and War Department

442nd Infantry Regiment (United States) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Japanese

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Rosette question

I've been wondering, do you know if the MOH rosette is a metal pin, or if it's a cloth ribbonette pressed and folded into the design? This is something I've been curious about for some time. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I was holding a Marine MOH recently, the MOH lapel button or rosette lapel button is a matching ribbon with 13 stars folded and pressed into the pin like a ribbon is pressed into the medal ribbon holder for a service ribbon. I read that too on Net somewhere.
I think first time issued MOH's (at least Navy version) are always govt made bronze ones. Besides Navy site and Institute of Heraldry site, the Govt-Army regulation that I had referenced and was removed said 5-pointed bronze star. I think the replacement MOH's given to MOH recipients and NOKs (if they are entitled to a replacement), and MOH's given (loaned) to museums, are company made brass ones. I read somewhere on net MOH is made with a "gilt-bronze" finish.
The Navy had rectangular (vertical) centerpieces and 6-sided centerpieces or shields on the neck ribbon before it was changed to octagon. You can see these on the net for before WWII, and Korea I think...it looks like the Navy had transparent blue neck ribbons too, shiny silk, silver blue, not bluebird color...sometimes looks darker too in the light which looks better to me than the plain light blue one with a large octagon shield. There was white star differences too. I think the Navy version was made first and that's why its the only one that keeps the original (traditional) star design, star size, and bronze appearance ... bronze Navy and Army MOH models were made first before the 200/2000 were ordered in ~1861 or 1862. -YahwehSaves

I think they were made of bronze in the past, but for many many decades now they're made of brass and other inexpensive materials just because it's cheap and easy. I don't have any source citations/references to prove that, just my opinion/perspective on it. When a reference says "The current medal is a five-pointed bronze star...", I think they just mean the color is bronze, not the actual metal composition. It's just a good way to describe it as opposed to what it's made of. For example, a government reference might say that "lieutenant's bars are silver" and "lieutenant commander's oak leaves are gold" but it's all just brass in it's true chemical composition.

With regard to the lapel button, thanks, I was wondering if it was cloth ribbon or metal. In all the other medal sets I've seen, you get a little metal pin replica of the service ribbon and that's what made me wonder if the MOH rosette was actual cloth ribbon or just a metal image of one. Glad to hear they actually make it of cloth, it's more appropriate given the MOH's status.

On the different Navy venterpieces and shields, different color hues, and different stars, I got a sense of that looking at some of the pictures of older MOHs being worn on individual service members (you can look at lots of samples by going to the lengthy lists of MOH Recipients). Don't know if it's worth trying to work into the historical section without it becoming too cluttered or confusing, plus without references it becomes very fuzzy, but if you want to try to work something in it's an idea. One thing patently missing from the historical section is discussion of the Tiffany Cross, which we really should include. We have the image in the historical section, but no explanation. I will try working something in on that shortly... Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Retain national varieties of English

With regards to this edit See MOS:ENGVAR: favouring and colour are correctly spelt. -- PBS (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Consistency on MOH

I think we introduce problems when we describe something in one location as "X" and then describe it somewhere else (under a photo of it, for example) as "Y". Is there a reason why we would want to introduce inconsistencies? I think you've done this a couple times before so I'm asking here since I can't divine your intentions from the edit summaries. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The manuals (DoD) says "Medal of Honor ribbon" (its quoted in Appearance section - for "V" device application for MOH) not Medal of Honor service ribbon (Box photo).

"Lapel button" not bowknot.

The MOH presentation case contents I believe are refered to as: Medal of Honor, ribbon, and lapel button. --YahwehSaves

Are you saying that you think instead of calling it the "service ribbon" or the "ribbon bar", we should just call it the "ribbon"? AzureCitizen (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps its better to remove the top ribbon and lapel button photo? Only one photo of each is required for the Article.
Then the names of the 2nd photos would be: Service ribbon, Lapel button (rosette), "V" (valor) device?
Rosette means rose design, lapel buttons can have different designs like the Gold Star Lapel Button (silver circle with a center star) that's mentioned in DoD 1348.33 V3 under lapel buttons. --YahwehSaves

It's true that most articles only have one photo of a particular item. If we apply that rationale, however, it would also justify removing all the pictures of the individual medals in the appearance section, on the basis that the same images appear at the top of the article as well. The Medal of Honor is so rare compared to all the other DOD medals that I think it's justified to include the individual images in the appearance section again so that readers can see exactly what we're talking about at the same time that they're reading about the appearance and design of the medals and their accessories. Most other medals have much smaller articles as well, so you usually just see the medal and it's associated service ribbon in the main infobox. Originally, the subsection with the individual images appeared so closely near the top of the article that the visual display was redundant, but fortunately you added enough stuff into the "history" section above that it all spaces out very nicely now and come across well in the aesthetic. With regard to the names of the individual items, I just think it's important to pick one name (whatever the best, most accurate, most recognizable name is) and then consistently use the same descriptive name wherever it needs to appear in the article, to keep it consistent. Service ribbon seems to be better than ribbon bar or ribbon. Lapel button seems better now than lapel pin or rosette. On the "V" device, there are other names for it but again, "V" device is the most prominent (the one that the MOH clause on p. 34 specifically mentions), so I think it better to say "V" device rather than add in "valor" (I've always understood the V to stand for Valor, but that's not explicitly formalized and gets us back into the problem of multiple names). I think the current incarnation of the appearance section we've been collaborating on actually looks quite good now, better than anything we had previously before, and comes across very sharp, crisp, specific, etc.  :) Oh - something else if I may - I've noticed you sometimes add things in the text using parenthesis, and I come along and rephrase it so that the parenthesis are no longer used. I do this because if something is worth saying, 99% of the time you can find a way to say it without resorting to parenthesis, and the end result looks better. For example, if you had a sentence that said "The silk sash (purple), with it's golden (Victorian) fringe, is displayed with the cross (Celtic) at top", it makes for better encyclopedic prose to say "The silk purple sash, with it's Victorian-era golden fringe, is displayed with the Celtic cross at top." Even if you have to add in a few words to do it, it just comes across better in its style. Just wanted to say something in the way of explanation if you've been wondering why I keep removing parenthesis and rephrasing. Does that make sense now? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Problem is, there are 2 different "ribbons" for the medal (neck+bar) ribbon. The Medal with the neck ribbon is the priority not the service ribbon and lapel button, with duplicate photo and duplicate description.
Would it be better to drop the the 2nd photos and just leave the V device photo? Try it that way and see what happens(?). Seems other articles for other things have it this way, no ribbon repeats but something else.
Isn't the lapel button description supposed to be rosette bowknot instead of bowknot rosette? I saw it this way on the net for MOH > bowknot (rosette), was why i did it that way... it implies there is more than 1 kind of bowknot.
The MOH with a completely folded up neck ribbon comes in a small presentation case like the cases other medals come in, but says, Medal of Honor, on top of the case. The NOK receive a large wooden glass case with the MOH displayed with the neck ribbon as a large V and a gold nameplate in it for the deceased. --YahwehSaves

I truly believe having the images of the three different medals with the neck ribbons attached, the service ribbon, the lapel button, and the "V" device all in the same place neatly dressed in a vertical column just to the right of the specific text descriptions for each item in the appearance section (Army/Navy/AF, then the accessory paragraphs) is a big improvement for the reader because it puts everything in one place, to read and see at the same time, with explanation just at left and picture just at right. If you dislike the duplication of the imagery, how about we try and see how it looks with the ribbon and lapel button hidden at the top instead (by "commenting" them out, at least temporarily)? I'll make that edit in just a minute as a test. While I'm at it, I will also change the text from "bowknot rosette" to "rosette bowknot" per your suggestion. After that, I need to turn in for the night but will check back tomorrow morning when I get online to see what you think... --AzureCitizen (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems Ok like this, focus is more on the 3 medals now and the box seems more dignified to look at. --YahwehSaves

Just got back online this morning. Sounds good! As a side note, it looks like two editors are discussing the issue of MOH versus CMOH at the bottom of the article's Talk Page. I'm going to check the archives to see if that issue was discussed previously. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason its called the Congressional Medal of Honor Society is because its chartered by the Congress--have a source for that supported by the CMOHS.
I was looking at the Navy MOH version before WW2, no center piece/shield on the neck ribbons.
The first Navy version (models or first samples could be the ones that looked reddish) supposedly were copper and bronze coated, but the ones ordered were again called "bronze"-have another reference for that too. The DOD versions-diagram versions given here of what the 3 medals are made of has now been removed?
I thought the tiny silver star center star is supposed to be "silver", that's why its called Silver Star, when its basically a Gold Star. Don't know why the Bronze Star Medal has a center star too, don't need it (actually 2 stars like Silver Star is 2 stars). You should get what its called. All they had to do was make the BSM into a SS, chrome or nickel or something like it if they cant afford silver. The Silver Star is flat while the BSM isn't, which is better I think.

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Medal of Honor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rosette (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The Silver Star and subsequent awards of Coast Guard personnel

Howdy. Do me a favor and read page 1-13 of the Coast Guard Awards Manual. On there it has listed the Silver Star and next to it is a superscript "a". Scroll down to the end of the legend on page 1-16, that explains that "a" means 5/16-inch stars for subsequent awards. Nowhere in that manual does it say oak leaf cluster for anything other than joint personal and unit awards. Just because the manual says "Silver Star" in more places than it says "Silver Star Medal" does not mean they use olc's as the appurtenance for subsequent awards. It would behoove us to edit the article to be accurate, but if I do so now, it may appear that there is an edit war going on. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

1. Where in the CG manual does it say Silver Star Medal? "Just because the manual says 'Silver Star" in more than one place than it says "Silver Star Medal"... does it mean they use olc's as the appurtenance for subsequent awards".

2. Where does this come from? "Nowhere in the manual does it say oak leaf cluster for anything other than joint personnel and unit awards".

3. What is the purpose in giving the above as facts? Its not to be accurate.

a Is tiny-blurry on the computer I'm using, I thought it was an asterisk. The manual says:
DOD/USN*
1-13 Silver Star a
2-3 5. Silver Star
1-16 Subsequent Awards: The following stars (or cluster) are authorized to denote subsequent awards.
"c" Oak leaf Cluster: Authorized for wear on joint unit or personal awards. Awards issued from other services with the OLCs will be worn with the OLCs unless the same award is issued by the Coast Guard with a different device (e.g. Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal).

Page 22-1 it lists the "Silver Star Medal" in the order of precedence.

You are misreading the oak leaf cluster section, joint unit or personal awards on page 1-16 refers to joint awards both unit and personal. Joint awards are the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, Defense Superior Service Medal, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Joint Service Commendation Medal, the Joint Service Achievement Medal, and the Joint Meritorious Unit Award. In reading the table on page 1-13 you can see that the JMUA is the only one with a "c" next to it. Next to the Silver Star is "a" meaning 5/16-inch star. As you acknowledge that you are unable to view the source in proper detail with your computer, I am changing the article to reflect that the USCG uses gold stars. If you do not believe that the USCG uses gold stars I offer you a picture of retired Commandant of the Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen EricSerge (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The Coast Guard awards the "Silver Star" (2-3 5.) not Silver Star Medal (Navy 22-1) and CG wears the 5/16 inch star with the exception if the Army awards CG the Silver Star with an OLC (1-16 "c").

I am not going to split hairs over which they use as the Coast Guard is inconsistent. You are mistaken about the example that you cite "if Army awards CG Silver Star..." According to the Coast Guard Awards Manual page 1-16, "Awards issued from other services with OLCs will be worn with OLCs unless (my emphasis) the same award is issued by the Coast Guard with a different device (e.g., Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal). They only way they would wear an Oak Leaf Cluster outside of Joint awards would be a multiple of awards of something like the Army Commendation or Achievement Medal, something that the Coast Guard itself does not award. EricSerge (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The Coast Guard manual is not the Navy manual (22-1). We're talking about the Silver Star - are you saying the Coast Guard member can't wear the Silver Star with OLC, and only the 5/16 inch star, if both Silver Stars were awarded by the Army (according to CG 1-16 "c")?. If so, then I think you are the one that's mistaken.

There is no page 22-1 in SECNAVINST 1650.1H. EricSerge (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about the Silver Star. Are you saying the Coast Guard member can't wear the Silver Star with OLC if both Silver Stars were awarded by the Army? If so, then I think you are the one that's mistaken.

Enough with debating the name of the medal. I call a motor vehicle a "car", you call it an "automobile" at the end of the day we are talking about the same thing. It is already mentioned in the lead that the naval service calls it the Silver Star Medal, there is no need to beat a dead horse with prose, it is already covered and does not need to be covered in every single paragraph.

As to OLC's did you not read the same passage I read? I am not talking about the navy manual but the CG manual. The unless part seemed pretty open and shut to me. EricSerge (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

"There is no page 22-1". I meant "SECNAVINST 1650. H (1-22). When you answered above, 22-1, I thought it was 1-22
Navy awards precedence is 1-22, Silver Star Medal. Awards Silver Star Medal.
CG awards precedence is 22-1, Silver Star Medal. Awards Silver Star.
DoD awards precedence is V3-P. 60, Silver Star Medal.
CG 1-16 "c." unless the same award is issued with a different device. Silver Star has no other devices. The CG wears the Army awarded Silver Star (2) with the OLC only, correct?

I will no longer engage in this pedantic discussion with you. You keep obliterating a reference about the Navy and Marine Corps using 5/16" stars for no apparent reason. The Silver Star and the Silver Star Medal are the exact same thing. There is no difference. It is a hunk of shiny metal that hangs under a red, white and blue ribbon. Your editing seems to border on the disruptive and you refuse to think about reviewing and following the Manual of Style. I cannot work with you sir. EricSerge (talk) 00:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The CG is under Dept. of Homeland Security not the Navy Dept., that's evidently why it awards the Silver Star (uses oak leaf clusters: not in this case) instead of the Silver Star Medal (which uses 5/16" stars). The CG awarded Silver Star Medals during Vietnam.

Holy crap man, the Silver Star and Silver Star Medal are the same thing. There is no difference. The USCG does not issue awards with olc's. READ THE MANUAL . EricSerge (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I know Silver Star is the same "medal", kinda foolish to say otherwise. Why don't you read the Navy & Marine manual and show me where it says "Silver Star" instead of Silver Star Medal. What I said was, when the Army awards 2 Silver Stars to the CG they wear the olc on it. If the CG awards another Silver Star then a 5/16 inch star is added (Silver Star with olc+5/16" star). You know otherwise?

I was gone for the stretch of time that you and Eric were discussing the above text; now that I've read it and taken a look at the applicable references and pages, and thought about the issue, I would conclude the following:

The relevant guidance is located in COMDTINST M1650.25D on page 1-16. It says:

"Oak Leaf Cluster (OLC). Authorized for wear on joint unit or personal awards. Awards issued from other services with OLCs will be worn with OLCs unless the same award is issued by the Coast Guard with a different device (e.g., Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal)."

Therefore, if a member of the Coast Guard is serving with an Army unit and was awarded a decoration by the Army, if that award is something unique to the Army such as the Army Commendation Medal or the Army Achievement Medal, and then on subsequent occasions the Coast Guard member was awarded further Army Commendation Medals or Army Achievement Medals, the Coast Guard member would wear oak leaf clusters on the service ribbons of those medals. However, if the Coast Guard member is awarded a decoration by the Army, and that decoration is an award that is also issued by the Coast Guard (i.e., Silver Star Medal), then he or she would would wear 5/16 inch stars, even if the Army awarded him or her multiple Silver Star medals and the Coast Guard itself had never awarded him or her one. Does that make sense now, or is there still disagreement here? Hope this helps... regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all, check the CG manual (2008), the CG no longer awards "Silver Star Medals" and "Purple Heart Medals" like they did during the Vietnam War. The CG is now under the Dept. of Homeland Security... it changed to the Silver Star and Purple Heart but kept the 5/16" star instead of changing to the olc. (like DHS is temporary or something?).

The Army awarded CG members Silver Star Medals with olc's during Vietnam, do you think they took off the olc's and put 5/16' stars on it? if they didn't then, they wouldn't now would they? The "e.g.' quote above, leaves out Silver Star (has Legion of Merit and Meritorious Service Medal). --Yahweh Saves

The abbreviation "e.g." is latin for exempli gratia, which means "for example". The USCG instruction at issue specifies that OLCs "will be worn, unless the same award is issued by the Coast Guard with a different device (e.g., Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal)." In that usage, e.g. means they are giving examples of the "same" types of awards. Hence, when the instruction says "unless the same award", they are talking about medals like the BSM and the Silver Star too. "Exempli gratia" may have been throwing you off but it clearly can not be interpreted to be an exclusionary list that only authorizes the LM and the MSM in that regard. That is the rule today; if the USCG was letting Coast Guard members wear oak leaf clusters on their silver stars back during Vietnam, it's an interesting aspect of history but that was many decades ago and Coast Members awarded Silver Stars today wear them in accordance with COMDTINST M1650.25D page 1-16. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The Coast Guard:
Changed the Silver Star Medal to Silver Star (awards "Silver Star") but still awards "Purple Heart Medal" (?).
Says "LEGENDS" (?), in bold (?), P. 1-15.
CG manual: It doesn't say V Device (or Combat "V"). You see "Combat V" in the CG manual (Combat V is in Navy-Marine manual)?
CG manual: V Device (or Combat V?) not in the CG citations (with valor) or on the CG Certificates (VALOR) (?).
Eg doesn't mention "Silver Star" (Silver Star Medal) (olc or 5/16" star, SS/SSM has no other devices).
Eg (Legion of Merit and Meritorious Service Medal (olc or 5/16" star), has other or "different devices", V&O).
In the past if olc's were worn on Army awarded Silver Stars for Navy or Coast Guard personnel before why wouldn't it be worn now (?)
CG Medal of Honor (P. 1-13, Medal of Honor a = 5/16 inch gold star not "V" device for additional award) (?).

You've pointed out that the Coast Guard doesn't say "V" Device or Combat "V" in their instruction and I agree. They do refer to it as the "Combat Distinguishing Device" just as the Navy and Marines do, however, hence it's pretty obvious they're talking about the same thing.

With regard to whether or not USCG personnel awarded Silver Stars with oak leaf clusters in Vietnam would wear them today, I think it depends on the context. If we're talking about retirees or veterans wearing their medals at a ceremony, I don't think anyone would expect them to take off the OLCs and put on 5/16 inch stars. However, if a USCG member was actually still in the service today, 40+ years later, and they were servicing their uniform and they actually had OLCs on a Silver Star, it would be appropriate and in keeping with the current guidance for them to remove the OLCs and put on 5/16 inch stars. In the military, when it comes to wearing a uniform, we go with what the service regulations say today, not what they said in a prior incarnation (hence why regulations often contain the proviso that they "supersede" prior regulations). It's all just a part of keeping things in uniformity.

If the e.g. thing is still causing any confusion, it may help to view the text quotation with exempli gratia directly replaced with it's literal full translation from the latin, which is for the sake of example (see here). AzureCitizen (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

"Oak Leaf Cluster (OLC). Authorized for wear on joint unit or personal awards. Awards issued from other services with OLCs will be worn with OLCs unless the same award is issued by the Coast Guard with a different device (for the sake of example, Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal)."

We don't know how long after the Vietnam War somethings were changed, the DoD 2010 manual has the V for the 2nd MOH which is a rather recent change since the 2006 Navy-Marine manual and the CG 2008 manual both have the 5/16" star for the 2nd MOH.
The Air Force manual 2001 doesn't allow use of the MOH lapel button. But may now be following the DoD manual.

All true, some changes may be very recent while others might be far older. You'd probably need copies of every regulation and instruction governing uniforms and awards issued over the past several decades to be able to figure out just exactly when it all happened. In so far as the V for the 2nd MOH, I agree that it's definitely a very recent change and it would probably be a good idea to add that information to both the MOH article and the V article. I'll take care of that with my next two edits... AzureCitizen (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

5/16 inch stars

Do you know what the limit is for the number of 5/16 inch stars a service member can put on a service ribbon for a medal in the maritime services? Is it four, or five? For example, in the Army, you can't wear more than four oak leaf clusters on a single ribbon. This makes me wonder what the Navy does, but the SECNAVINST doesn't address it. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

4 gold stars. Allows 5 devices per ribbon (1 silver star and 4 gold stars).— Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs)

Okay, good, that means the 5/16 inch star article examples (awards 1-14 of the NAM) are correct. Interesting that the Army goes with 4 OLCs per ribbon while the Navy goes with 5 stars per ribbon (maybe it's because OLC's are wider than 5/16 inch stars and hence they take up more room), but I guess that's what they decided. Okay, next question: what happens when you get a 15th award in the Navy? Do you add a ribbon to the right of the first one and start adding stars there, just like the Army? --AzureCitizen (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Add another ribbon far as I know right now. I Think the Air Force manual says only two Legion of Merits are allowed for an airman's career.

Talk Page signatures

Do you know how to sign your comments on Talk Pages? I'm checking right now to see if either 1) you don't understand how to do it, or 2) you know how, but either don't want to or just keep forgetting. Which is it? AzureCitizen (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeremy Michael Boorda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meritorious Service Medal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Philippine Republic Presidential Unit Citation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Decoration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lawson P. Ramage, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Japanese, Decoration and Wolfpack (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wesley L. Fox, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Meritorious Service Medal and Marine Corps Recruit Depot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Medal of Honor

I respectfully disagree with your edits removing the name of the act from >"An Act to Amend Titles 10, 14, and 38, United States Code, with Respect to the Award of Certain Medals and the Medal of Honor Roll," July 25, 1963, HR 2998, Public Law 88-77, 77 Stat. 93. That is the law the set those criteria- the fact that DoD does not fully cite it in the manual is irrelevant, as the name of the act itself does not change. Title 14 does include the criteria (see http://us-code.laws.com/title-14-coast-guard/part-i-regular-coast-guard/chapter-13-pay-allowances-awards-and-other-rights-and-benefits/491), and so does title 38 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title38/html/USCODE-2011-title38-partII-chap15-subchapIV-sec1560.htm). The reason is that title 14 is the Coast Guard (doesn't fall under DoD), and title 38 is the VA. They still apply the same criteria because they were aligned by the same statute.

It's always more correct to cite the statute over Service or OSD regulation. The reason is that the latter are secondary sources, and they contain numerous errors (you are trusting that the policy proponents know what they are doing, and they often do not have much in the way of historical files). The only authority for the medal is the statute. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Look at the Authority and Privileges section, has Title 10... someone had started that with just Army.

Yes, the section is incomplete- it is missing the Coast Guard statute, and those statutes are not even remotely similar in law or langauge to the 1862 statute (which was only for the Army). The quoted section also only applies to the Army (but falls after the Air Force). It would make more sense to put that before the various services and simply put "Service" in brackets. I rewrote much of this page last week- entire sections were fragmented and contradictory, especially in reference to the separate pre-1963 Army and Navy statutes, and the Navy's use of a non-combat statute up to 1963.Foxtrot5151 (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bubba Phillips (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Grand slams, Athlete and National Leagues

Billy Goodman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to South Pacific

Earl Torgeson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Boston Braves

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Minnie Miñoso, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Finley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, please starting signing your posts per WP:Signatures....William 12:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Stop making all these changes to infoboxes. Your changes are against WP:Baseball consensus.--Yankees10 22:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Stop putting false information into Info Boxes and introductions (All-Star times are based on years not games). Gold Glove Awards are based on number of not times won.

December 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mickey Mantle. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please discuss at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball to gain consensus before making similar changes on baseball-related pages. —Bagumba (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, such as on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Baseball‎‎, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

A gentle reminder to please sign your posts. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I notice that many others aside from myself have warned you about your tendency to not sign your posts. Editors are entitled to know who contributed a comment. Please ask for help if you are having problems signing per Misplaced Pages:Signatures. Otherwise, it would be unfortunate if sanctions such as blocks are needed to resolve what should be an easily remedied issue.—Bagumba (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Your edit to add "YS", if it was an attempt at a signature, does not include a timestamp or a link to your user page. You are also strongly encourage to use your username in your signature, not a nickname. Please follow the instructions to use four tildes. You can test this at the sandbox.—Bagumba (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:YahwehSaves refusing to leave signature. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Some advice

You may want to try signing your posts using four tildes (~~~~), or by clicking the signature and timestamp button (the pen next to the Italicized I in the toolbar at the top of the edit window). Not signing makes it hard to figure out if a post belongs to you, which gives the impression that you're trying to hide something (something only a troll or vandal would need to do). Refusing to address matters that multiple editors (including uninvolved editors) bring up is honestly rude. You wouldn't want to give people the impression that you're rude or disruptive, right? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me be more direct than my colleagues. If you want to retain your ability to edit Misplaced Pages, you should immediately go to WP:ANI#User:YahwehSaves refusing to leave signature and either commit to signing your posts in the future, or explain why you don't feel you should and have stubbornly refused to even acknowledge this problem that so many people have mentioned. Many thousands of editors manage to type those four tildes millions of times a month to help other editors understand the structure of a discussion. You need to explain why you won't. And don't forget to sign it. —— 23:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

You have not commented at the discussion WP:ANI#User:YahwehSaves refusing to leave signature, despite several notes on your talk page. At the same time, you have continued to not sign talk page comments, as with , which is the subject discussed there. Misplaced Pages is a collegial project, which means that all editors have to discuss disagreements with others; ignoring good-faith comments by others on your talk page is not a sign of collegial editing. In this case you are violating a longstanding community norm by not signing talk page posts, and you have been editing since 2011, so you are not a new editor. Therefore, I have blocked this account for 24 hours. I will unblock it immediately if you agree to begin signing your talk page posts. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Billy Pierce, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wins (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Please do not put your signature in the middle of comments

Signatures go at the end of comments, not in the middle. If you change the content of an earlier comment, you can add a second signature to the end, but do not put it in the middle, it makes the comments extremely difficult to read. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gary Peters (baseball), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wins (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Herb Score, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blind (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Billy Pierce (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to ERA, WP, Runs, Wins and Hits

Billy Goodman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Washington Senators

Ted Kluszewski (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to National league

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gary Peters (baseball), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Loss and Runs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

Your addition to Audie Murphy has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Misplaced Pages without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Misplaced Pages. For legal reasons, Misplaced Pages cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please do not use text copied from http://www.audiemurphy.com/amrf/amrf_news8.pdf which was copyrighted in 2000. Your text was far too closely paraphrased. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Maile66 referenced from the same AMRF newsletter (2/23, "Legal issues" section) before I ever did (and maybe before that) without any harsh criticism. The Audie Murphy Memorial site is referenced in the site info box which contains the past newsletters.

Unnecessary detail at Audie Murphy

G'day, the additional of the date of death of Murphy's company commander is unnecessary detail under GA criteria 3b. I have removed it on that basis. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
How is not unnecessary? The captain's death is part of the story concerning Murphy on 3/19 isn't it?

Suggest you read and deal with Talk:Audie_Murphy#Not_in_source asap. Ma®©usBritish 10:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in discussion involving you

There is a discussion currently at Talk:WikiProject Military History, that is of a subject matter involving you. Should you care to participate, the thread is Here Thank you. — Maile (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Ma®©usBritish 00:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI#YahwehSaves

Just a pointer to a discussion involving you. - Dank (push to talk) 03:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Audie Murphy. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. See WP:GA criteria before poorly editing GAs in future. Ma®©usBritish 14:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Matt Urban may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 ""s and 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Matt Urban may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ralph Ignatowski (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Japanese and Private

Henry Oliver Hansen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Servicemen

John Bradley (United States Navy) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Servicemen

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ira Hayes may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 6th Marine Division (United States) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Edward Clyde Benfold may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Edward Clyde Benfold may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Korean War Service Medal may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Roger Maris may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * ] )1960)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Golden Era Veterans Committee may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Bill Dewitt (]), Ronald Hemond (]), ] (], and ] (retired).<br>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ira Hayes, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Serviceman, John Bradley and Bougainville (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 22nd Marine Regiment (United States), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Linda Vista (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

22nd Marine Regiment (United States) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Battle of Guam

6th Marine Division (United States) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Battle of Guam

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Altman, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Billy Williams and Double header (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Herb Score may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *1956: All-Star (AL (AL)<ref name="Score Stats" />

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Roger Maris may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ] (1960–1961), ] (1959-1962, and ] winner (1960).<ref>[http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Willie Mays may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• All-Star Game Record Book, "Most Games Played", Aaron, Mays, Musial, 24. Retrieved July 21, 2013. ]s,