Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:55, 24 March 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)

General John Pershing

I would like to point out to you that General Pershing's nickname of "Nigger Jack" has nothing to do with shock value, and has been on the page for a long time. You gave the example of using that word as a nickname for President Obama if an angry soldier were to call him that. Talk about shock value- You're saying that a person having that nickname, and a person being called that name by one person equate to the same thing. As the article states, the nickname was given to Pershing in 1897 at West Point. The press began calling him "Black Jack" as a euphemism during World War I. The U.S. entered WWI in 1918. He had that nickname for 21 years before even being called "Black Jack". That name is horrible, but it is correct, and as we all know, Misplaced Pages is not censored. As I have said, that name has been in the box in that article for some time. If you, or other editors wish to remove it, the burden of proof is on you to provide a reliable source saying that the name "Nigger Jack" was rarely used. Thank you.Mk5384 (talk) 07:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)