User talk:Husnock/Archive 5

Ranks
Hi! Please could you express your thoughts as a specialist about a temporary version of the article: Comparative military ranks of World War II/temp. Thank you.--Nixer 21:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have suggested unprotection based on your latest version. -Husnock 21:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you--Nixer 10:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Image problem
Thanks for uploading Image:St1AdPic.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status.
 * Taken care of. -Husnock 19:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Further rank questions
Hello Lieutenant, hope your last excersizes were flawless! Has the Army anything new to say about Fleet Admiral of the Russian Federation? :P
 * The temp version by Nixer seems to be correct but now it has been reverted, so a Soviet Marshal of a branch service and a Chief Marshal of a branch service have been misplaced, and so has been a Soviet Fleet Admiral. Maybe the page should have been left protected forever, so that any changes have to be discussed on the Talk page and a consensus met for them to be included in the article... What do you think?
 * And please, please look at the state of Russian military ranks and its copy at Military ranks of the Soviet Union - these articles have been suffering from nonsensual edits by User:Roitr and User:Tt1 who look like the bots of the same person, and my attempts to stop him were in vein, so now I'm just trying to bring the issue to the attention of fellow Wikipedians... Best regards, --DmitryKo 22:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems that I'm not the only one who's not happy about the actions of this person, yet various complains filed in accordance to the policy just doesn't seem to help situation... I've seen many web boards forced to engage a 'register-to-post' requirement just in order to supress teenage throlls of all kinds, and it seems like English Wikipedia would have to go the same route, eventually :(
 * Oh, and congratulations on your becoming an admin! ;) --DmitryKo 00:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There was a quite a nasty edit war on the WWII comparative rank chart. The user(s) you are mentioning above were blocked at least twice for 3RR breaking. Things calmed down (a little) and it seems people are behaving a little bit better. I know little about the Russian ranks, and trust those to others who have more knowledge than I. I was mainly concerned on that article about adding non-existent German ranks which several problem users seemed intent on adding. As far as the article now, things appear to be going well and further disputes can be discussed calmly. As far as Fleet Admiral of the Russian Federation, I haven't seen anything new on it but will keep my ears open. Maybe someone could write the Russian Naval Command (or whatever its called) and scan here an exact response to the question about the rank. -Husnock 19:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Believe me, he f..ed up multiple Russian rank articles as well, but there just doesn't seem to be enough people with knowledge on the subject who could watch over these articles. I'm just frustrated at the fact that one single person can p..s off so many people and still get away with this... --DmitryKo 21:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection
Hi Husnock. Please remember that, per WP:SEMI, semiprotection is not to be used to dispel edit wars such as that on Bosnian Genocide. We shouldn't be use semi to target specifically anons since they are just as much editors as everyone else. I've increased the article to full protection. Thanks. -Splash talk 21:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Good call. Please look at the situation on Comparative military ranks of World War II if you have a chance. -Husnock 21:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, about WWII comparative ranks, I don't know which version is the correct one anymore. That article has been trolled by User:Nixer, User:Tt1 and various sockpuppets (who all have a history of adding bogus ranks to that and many more articles) to such an extent that it's a mess now. I dread to think what will happen when Nixer gets unblocked (he's blocked for a 3RRvio on that article). He was reverting to his version removing Halibutt's and my additions of the Greek and Polish ranks. I bet he resumes and and starts removing Italy as well *sigh*. To get back to the point, do you have any idea which version is the correct one? Latinus 22:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have declared these edit revert war users as vandals. It is very clear that it is the same user operating with numerous sockpuppets.  Further nonesense, like what we are seeing on the article, will be met no longer with words, but with blocks. -Husnock 06:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Bosnian Genocide
Husnock, following the protection of Bosnian Genocide article you may find these also interesting:

           

With a quick overview you will notice that particluar user (User:Nikola Smolenski) that has resorted to edit war on Bosnian Genocide article is also revering other 12 articles (at least) while singlehandedly opposing anywhere between 6 to 10 other regisetered users on a regular basis. Some action is baddly needed as we are loosing time and energy on this person while we could use it for more productive work. Thanks--Dado 22:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does seem like a nasty edit war. I'll try and keep an eye on the article for awhile.  I am currently dealing with seriopus edit wars and semi-vandal attacks at Comparative military ranks of World War II, so I can't promise how much action I will be able to take.  Please alert me if there are any persistent and blatant vandals, though.  -Husnock 16:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Tt1
Hi, what can be done about Tt1? He has violated the 3RR and he's still on the loose! I am trading on very thin ice here and am not able to revert him for the next 20 hours. Can't the article be protected or him blocked? Latinus 20:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we are headed for an RFC on this guy. He has royally p.o.ed about 4-5 established and well respected users.  Primary activities seem to be three revert rule violations, sockpuppets, and edit wars. -Husnock 20:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, I know that this is probably the last thing you want to hear, but could you please revert on Comparative military ranks of World War II to the last good version (in this case, Necrothesp's). A new sockpuppet user has appeared, this time adding bogus flags to Greece and Poland, while preserving Tt1's edits (how nice of him). I don't know about the Polish flag, but the Greek one is wrong. I'd revert, but I can't for the next hour (3RR), whereas you have one revert left. Latinus 17:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Husnock, could it be that User:Nixer, Tt1 and Roitr are actually userbots of one same person? This is what User:Encyclopedist is suggesting and I tend to agree with him, because these users seem to be addicted to the same articles and they make very similar edits. Maybe you have the powers to check for this... --DmitryKo 21:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we are dealing with a chronic edit war vandal who simply assumes new user IDs to bypass the Three Revert Rule and maybe, in my opinion, is deliberately making controversial changes just to get kicks out of revert wars and seeing how long he/she can go before being blocked. To date, we have the main edit warrior User:Tt1 who appears to have used the sockpuppets Roitr and now User:Alexr23 as well as dozens of anon IP address.  I also now suspect User:Nixer as the same user, but at first thought it might be a different person but now am not so sure.
 * These article attacks are bordering on vandalism and this is rapidly becoming bannable behavior. The only thing that has prevented far more serious action is that the scope of these attacks have been confined to just a few articles and the user in question has (quite wisely) never openly threatened anyone, (i.e. "I'll kill you if you revert me") or vandalized talk pages of admins after being blocked.  That *at least* is something positive from all of this. -Husnock 21:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we make Requests for CheckUser then? --DmitryKo 22:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

For Husnock and for Halibu. If you think that I -Tt1, Nixer, Alexr23 or others, that continue to think, but I not they. If I consider that in the certain cases I agree with them I have on this right. I and these users consider that we write correct data and you or others can disagree with them. But you cannot forbid to have to me the opinion.You many times ignored data proved by others too. About flags - in this table there should be official State flags or national flags. Not flag Polish army or Marine, and a national Polish flag. See Polish State flag and http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/pl-xx.html*w27. The Marshal of the USSR is equivalent to Admiral Flota between 1944-1955 and to equivalent OF-10 code and Marshal of the USSR was above than Admiral Flota rank between 1940-1944. Also in Italian ranks in the old version, there are mistakes and inexact equivalence, therefore I and others have corrected it. For an example: Contrammiraglio equivalent to Generale di Brigata and to OF-6. Where Generale di C.A. designato d'Armata, Ammiraglio di Squadra designato di Armata, Ammiraglio di Squadra con Incarichi Speciali, Generale di Corpo d'Armata con Incarichi Speciali, Generale di Squadra Aerea con Incarichi Speciali-all of them in OF-8 not writen. See http://www.regiamarina.net/ref/uniforms/ranks_us.htm, http://www.kotfsc.com/aviation/italynavyranks.htm, http://www.kotfsc.com/aviation/graphics/italyranks-main.jpg, http://www.esercito.difesa.it. Looking on written here the facts I believe that my changes exact were right also. I with you had only two disputable questions: 1) flags. 2) Polski Admirał floty and Generał Armii. If you do not agree with me about flags discuss this theme and can to change it, but please don't return all clause. All other data check up and they 100% exact. Data about Polski Admirał floty and Generał Armii I shall check up later. -Roitr 13:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Continued discussion on this was left by Roitr at 13:40, 3 February 2006 on my page, the page of User:Halibutt and the WWII ranks talk page -Husnock 15:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Heydrich.jpg
Hi there, you tagged Image:Heydrich.jpg as PD-USGov-NARA. After the fallout from GermanGov I've been going around and looking at articles they were used in. Do you have a shelfmark to back this claim up, maybe. Mistagged and poorly sourced images are a problem here and possibly a source of liability. Pilatus 16:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That image can be found on a microfiche roll at National Archives II, in College Park, Maryland, which contains the SS service record of Reinhard Heydrich. The original is, in all likihood, at the Berlin Documents Center located within the Bundesarchiv in Berlin.  Hope that helps! -Husnock 16:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that unlike in the US, imagery commissioned by the German government is copyrighted as a rule, and either with the government or the photographer. Heinrich Hoffmann made a fortune through his monopoly on Hitler portraits. This here looks like an official headshot, and unless we can prove that copyright is with the US government this picture is not PD and at needs proper sourcing to claim fair use. German image copyright is hairy, and over at .de.wikipedia folks are very careful not to fall on the wrong side of it. Pilatus 16:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats a little bit above my paygrade, as we say in the Navy. However, I doubt the German government could claim any copyright over World War II photos and records held by the U.S. National Archives.  Most of those were either captured during World War II or acquired during the subsequent occupation days between 45 and 47.  In my work at NARA, I've never seen a situation where German records, documents, or photos were subjected to copyrights held by anyone in Germany.  In fact, we copy and distribute them all the time.  Heydrich's record can be viewed and copied by anyone, and it has at least 3 service record photos of him in it. -Husnock 16:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Same here. I'm not a lawyer either. Thanks for your help! Pilatus 17:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Award
Husnock is awarded the Counter Troll Barnstar for not feeding the trolls. Latinus 22:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)]]
 * Thank you very much! Is this a recognized barnstar or on ein the proposal stages?  its a great idea! -Husnock 23:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, if you have time, could you see to this: Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Thanks :-) --Latinus (talk (el:)) 14:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Admiral of the Navy (US)
Discussion on this topic has been moved to Talk:Comparative military ranks of World War II -Husnock 15:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:RENFAI1X.JPG
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:RENFAI1X.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
 * Your sourcing is not good enough to validate the public domain claim -Nv8200p talk 17:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Took care of it. Thats a 20+ year old photograph that has been passed around through countless internet sites and discussion groups.  I've heard stories about a person named "KJ" claiming copyright to some such images (but, as far as I know, not this one), but his own claims are very weak and shaky and in one case were thrown out court on a copyright infringement charge. -Husnock 18:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Your logic is not a legitimate reason to claim PD. The author (unknown at this point) has to release to the public domain. Passing around an older image does not create public domain (unless you can cite something to support your claim). -Nv8200p talk 01:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I answered your question, yet you deleted it anyway? Thats a Public Domain image, pure and simple.  Its been on at least 50+ internet discussion groups and dates from something like 1983.  Noone knows who took it, at least several people claim too.  When I came across it, it was marked as "released into public domain by the original photographer".  I guess I will RE-upload it since it was deleted unles I can find a way to undelete. -Husnock 02:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is you do not know enough about the image to claim PD. You are welcome to upload the image again, but if you tag it PD, someone may nominate it for PUI again. I won't mess with it unless it shows up on WP:PUI or WP:IFD. You might want to discuss with a third party -Good luck -Nv8200p talk 02:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Check User
Requests for CheckUser/Archive/January 2006 --Latinus (talk (el:)) 18:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been looking for that page for awhile so I can run these myself. I recall seeing, though, quite some time ago, that Checkuser confirmed Roitr and Tt1 were the same guy but it was Nixer who was the question.  In any event, the users own edits speak for themselves.  It is the same user and his constant reverts and edit wars will now be treated as vandalism. -Husnock 18:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Nixer is not Tt1 and Roitr - Nixer lives in Moscow, whereas Tt1 and Roitr are from Israel. Unless Nixer in Moscow was Tt1 on holiday ;-) --Latinus (talk (el:)) 18:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but how could you be certain of that? --DmitryKo 18:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have seen Nixer's IP (it's from Moscow) and I think we've all seen Tt1/Roitr's IP (from Israel). Also, on the Russian Wikipedia, Nixer aka ru:user:Nxx says he lives in Moscow, thereby confirming the IP evidence. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 18:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I was always kind of on Nixer's side. He was slightly annoying at times, but always talked about things somewhat rationally and backed down at last when presented with cold hard evidence, thus showing a little bit of effort to work things out.  I am glad to see he is not mixed up in those edits by Tt1 and the sockpuppet army. -Husnock 18:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there some way to get the article fully protected? I know you can't as you have edited it, but if I reverted and posted a request on WP:RPP, do you think I should - this trolling has gone on for too long. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 20:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Right now, all three sockpuppets (T,R, and Alex) are blocked. If he returned after the block expires, I will fully protect the article.  I am actually out of the editing content portion, since I know nothing about the new ranks being added and haven't contributed to the Polish/Greek/Free French info.  I am acting purly as an admin, dealing with an edit war troll.  The only thing that I can say about this guy is that he has confined his edits to this article (but is still trolling) and hasn't threatened anyone yet.  If he ever did that, a ban would surely come. -Husnock 20:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * All right, Roitr's block expires tomorrow - so the revert war will obviously resume then. See ya then :-) --Latinus (talk (el:)) 20:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I will most likely fully protect this article in the next few hours so the edit war does not rage on. -Husnock 20:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * About checkuser, I don't know - have you seen the backlog? It's massive. We could try I suppose. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 20:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It was my mistake. Initially I thought Tt1 is a fair user and even supported him a while in some of his edits. This was a brude mistake. Please do not support all this delirium that he inserts.--Nixer 11:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging
Thanks for uploading Image:KWright.jpeg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. -- Carnildo 14:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Updated and taken care of. Thanks! -Husnock 16:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello. Could you please provide a more detailed rationale and source for this. It is the responsibility of the uploader to provide detailed copyright information, such as the specific URL. At the moment, people wanting to verify the status have to go hunting on google. Thanks. The JPS 16:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Its from a website promoted the actress (I think its Lifetime Movie Network). I have no idea what the url is. -Husnock 16:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I've listed it at Possibly unfree images for reveiw by others. The JPS 16:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * But there was no "coaxing"! I offered a full explanation on the page.  Sorry if it sounded rough, I've had bad dealings with "image police" users basicly going around tagging every image and calling the uploaders liars about the sources.  You do NOT appear to be one of those people, though.  Hope it gets worked out. -Husnock 16:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my use of the word 'coaxing' was not meant to be as dysphemistic as perhaps you've taken. Anyway, it's up to others now. I'm trawling through hundreds of images: there have been so many images incorrectly tagged as a screenshot. The JPS 17:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Good Conduct Medal
Recently you rolled back the USAF section of the Good Conduct Medal due to lack of references - while they haven't been posted to the offical pages yet, we have started to get emails in regards to the uniform board and some of the USAF message boards are starting to discuss the results. You can see the results of the board here (3c0x1.net). - Darkstar949 03:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hilter Youth Flag
Hello. I got the Hitler Youth flag drawn in the SVG format, as per a request nearly two months old (I wanted to draw it in SVG, since it would be easier to draw it, than in PNG (which is getting replaced)). It is at Image:Hitlerjugend Allgemeine Flagge.svg. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 01:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Starfleet ranks expansion
Hi, buddy whatcha upto, well, I noticed memory alpha page was updated a bit and was wondering what you think. Several insignias (such as paralel universe ones do not exist in wikipedia and larger images can be used. :) -- Cool CatTalk 17:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have made major changes and broke the article apart into many peices as we discussed earlier. Just letting you know :). I did the bulk of the work and there is some work left. However I would like to have your thoughts.
 * Also the enterprise crewman ranks. Are they really crewman ranks or instead petty officer etc? Or Crewman first class, crewman, recruit. They are rally out of the cannon of other series (which can happen I know). Just checking. -- Cool CatTalk 00:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Great article expansion. Left you a note on your talk page.  As far as the crewman ranks, they were established in the first series of Enterprise.  Anything above Crewman is conjecture from Enterprise (Petty officer, CPO, etc) and has never been talked about in live action of offical publication.  The rest of the article is awesome. -Husnock 00:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Should this image be used for all admiral ranks or would that be fannon. It appears fleet admiral and vice admiral carry same sholder insignia? -- Cool CatTalk 00:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Student Government Association
Hello. I think all of the information that was on this page is already included within the article Students' union, so I've reinstated the redirect. I have, however, copied the text to the Talk page of Students' union so editors can pick over it in case they feel there is something that isn't already covered. Regards, Jamse 10:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Star trek images
The benefit of taking the debate to Possibly unfree images is that there are more editors who frequent that page who are experienced in these issues than there are at Talk:Starfleet ranks and insignia. Please leave the tag alone. If it is decided that it is kept, then it will be removed by an experienced edior. I have already explained that the uploader should not remove the tags. Also, I cannot seem to locate these 'extended discussions'. It would be very helpful if you could provide a specific link to them.
 * I resent accusations that I am making accusations! There must be verifiable sources for images. This is policy. You, me and even Jimbo has to to abide be it. The JPS 21:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I will also give you the opportunity to read everything I've just spent 10 minutes writing, and then I would like you to rvt your own rvt. Faiure to do so is a clear breach of policy. Thanks. The JPS 21:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If it amuses you to put these tags on these images, then the policy does support it, so they can stay. However, this will accomplish nothing as they will most likely be recreated and uploaded.  Circles and pips within a box can be drawn by anyone and Paramount does not have a copyright on these images.  The rank pins from the movies are a little bit more shaky but even these have little copyright claim as they are geometric shapes which can be drawn on any graphic program.  Let the unfree tags stay if you wish.  If I am sounding harsh it is because I have seen far too many "image police" users who will attack and re-attack an image even after being provided extensive details on where it came from.  Some people will even want e-mail addresses and phone numbers of the original person who either took the photo or drew the picture which, of course, should never be given out.  So, you see what you've stumbled into in here. -Husnock 22:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reinstating the tag. There seems to be some activity in creating a special tag. If my involvement has resulted in the creation of a tag (if it's approved) which will clarify the status of these images, then, yes, I'm happy. Vague sources and tags set a bad example to new users, who think that they can upload anything they want from anywhere. Experienced users should be setting an example: if that tag is approved then it will show some indication of the knowledge of the ethics of copyright and authorship. (Of course, in the event that they were catually deleted, then "recreated and uploaded", they could be speedily deleted. I doubt it would get to that.) The JPS 00:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging
Thanks for uploading Image:Stockspic.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo.
 * Taken care of. -Husnock 16:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Parallel universe ranks
I believe this source establishes the rank insignias... no? -- Cool CatTalk 19:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That is a personal website and is considered Original Research. Also, the only Admiral who was ever seen wearing the rank pin was Jean Luc Picard in Future Imperfect.  The producers of Star Trek never published anything about other alternate universe Admiral ranks nor did they show any actors holding other Admiral ranks.  In fact, the episode "Future Imperfect" almost suggest shtta there may be only one Admiral rank while "Parallels" doesnt even talk about Admirals. -Husnock 19:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Enlisted rank insignia on ST:TMP
What is the source of the triangular insignias? How do we know they are enlisted officers? Someone asked me on http://www.st-spike.org/forums/ and I do believe sourcing that wouldnt hurt :) -- Cool CatTalk 22:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The primary source is the script from Star Trek: The Motion Picture where teh feamle communications tech on the bridge is listed as a Petty Officer.  She is then shown wearing a yellow triangle on her shoulder tabs.  Several otehr Star Trek publications, most notably a book called "The Making of the Motion Picture" give a Petty Officer rank scheme of blue, grey, and gold triangules.  In Star Trek III: The Search for Spock the triangular tabs become rectangle tabs but are still the same color scheme.  This is all pretty well covered in the Ranks and insignia of Starfleet article. -Husnock 19:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek Template
I have uploaded the officer insignias we (you, me, and other wikipedians) have created and released to PD to commons under this tag. Like? :)

-- Cool CatTalk 12:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty good. Sadly, my knowledge of Wiki Commons is very limited. -Husnock 19:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you use the commons images in the sub articles such as Captain (Star Trek) I moved most of the images we created to commons. I cant do this myself due to surgery (cant heavy edit).-- Cool CatTalk 02:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC

Graphics Images
I am repeatedly finding images of military badges, that I have meticulously drawn myself, on Wikipedia pages with a tag from Husnock. These images are labeled as US government property and for free use.

They are not US government property and not for free use without my written permission; they have been lifted from my site, United States Army Insignia Home Page (http://www2.powercom.net/~rokats/armyhome.html). I have a disclaimer at the bottom of my frontpage stating, "This site has no affiliation with the United States Government." I would think the URL's of the many pages (ie; http://www2.powercom.net/~rokats/wwiibadges.html) would be evidence enough that these are not government pages.

I am formally requesting that you remove any of my drawn images from Wikipedia and refrain from using them any further.

Rod RWD PLOESSL, BA, MSc US Army Insignia Home Page USAIHP@charter.net -66.188.127.133 18:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

1) The images that I have posted were acquired from U.S. military sources such as Randolph Air Force Base, the Naval Historical Society, and the Institute of Heraldry. No such images were directly copied from your website that I personally know about.  If people at those military facilities did so, I cannot comment.  Also, most of those images I acquired in 1998 and 1999, over seven years ago, so it is doubtful the original source can ever be truely verified 2) Pictures of military badges of the United States cannot be copyrighted by anyone. If you draw a picture of one and then post it, it is automatically in public domain. There are several laws which state one cannot copyright U.S. military insignia and badges and that they can be reproduced freely. Thus, if these images were copied from your website, and then redrawn by someone else, they would be considered public property.
 * Several problems with your claim. These being

I should add that if you are indeed connected to that website, you should feel very proud. It is considered a major source of information and is used as a reference at the National Personnel Records Center. As far as these images go, I deny stronly that they were stolen and, indeed, in my view they cannot be copyrighted in the first place. I hope that answers your concerns. We have procedures on this site for unfree image claims. -Husnock

Tt1 back again
Can you please block user 88.152.202.122 as he is no doubt a sockpuppet of Tt1? Also I just prepared a new version of the article Comparative military ranks of World War II and want know your opinion.--Nixer 01:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn' seem to be writing in the same style as Tt1. Also has a much better grasp of the English language. - Husnock 01:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I still think it can be his sockpuppet. He continually reverts to the version of Tt1.--Nixer 20:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Might be him. In any event, this user is very close to violating the 3 revert rule.  I will keep an eye out. -Husnock 21:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for semi-protection. Now the article has been vandalized by user Roitr, our old fried and a sockpuppet of Tt1. His account has been blocked indefinitely, but he somehow managed to unblock. By the way he also vandalized articles on Winter Olympics, just as did 88.152.202.122.--Nixer 17:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you block user 88.155.7.144 as he is a new sockpuppet of Tt1? He now vandalized the articles Comparative military ranks of World War II, Naval ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation, Russian military ranks and many others. Could you please semi-protect the article again?--Nixer 11:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I reverted one of the edits. Will keep my eyes open for 3RR violations.  This guy is really a sad case, playing him against the Wiki community.  e must know every legitimate user on the site is getting really tired of this. -Husnock 15:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)  FOLLOWUP: I just did a mass block against Tt1 and his many ip incarnations as well as protected the article.  Enough is enough. -Husnock 17:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's another one: 88.152.186.13 and Russian military ranks is still bastardized... man, why can't he just leave us alone? :E --DmitryKo 21:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And one more... 88.155.49.240 --DmitryKo 00:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 88.152.104.167 and this goes on and on... Husnock, could you please also semiprotect History of Russian military ranks, Air Force ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation and Army ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation? --DmitryKo 19:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

... as Sergeybakh and Markdanil!!?
At least that's what his contributions suggest... --DmitryKo 22:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm getting seriously p..d off at this sockpuppeteer... --DmitryKo 20:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ask the admins to run Checkuser on this guy. If hes caught, its an automatic ban.  The link to the checkuser page is on my home user page. -Husnock 21:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, but meanwhile, could you semiprotect the articles mentioned above? (I tried to insert the template just to scare the guy away, but it didn't work : --DmitryKo 21:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hell! I've just nominated his patent nonsense Chief Marshal of the Air Force of the Russian Federation for speedy deletion, because it has already been voted and consequently deleted, and then he recreated it on the very next day... --DmitryKo 22:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Now has gone on a mass reversion spree leaving trollish edit summaries (I gether he's been adding bogus ranks to all of them). Can't the affected articles be semi-protected - at least so that he'll be subject to the 3RR. --Latinus 21:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I semi-protected all the articles. The next step against this edit war vandal is to start a subpage listing him as a chronic vandal and providing all ips and other registered accounts under which he edits.  Other admins can then block the user on site.  I would do that now, but have little internet time due to real world activities. -Husnock 22:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! (please, semiprotect History of Russian military ranks as well...)
 * As for the subpage, I was nearly ready to propose something very similar. I'd take care of this, but where does it have to be created, exactly... maybe WP:LTA? --DmitryKo 22:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Roitr on the rage
Now he's creating copies of his delusions under new names and overwrited redirects!

He also recreated the speedied Chief Marshal of the Air Force of the Russian Federation udner a slightly different name...
 * This is a clear abuse of Wikipedia and those articles should be speedy deleted as POV forks. In the real world, I am quite busy with the Naval Reserve so I recommend contacting other admins.  This will also kill hsi accusations that I have something personal against him, as my many blocks and bans he took very personally.  Also, he we get him to ever actually threaten someone (i.e. "block me again and I'll kill you") he can be permanently kicked off Wikipedia, banned on site, for making threats. -Husnock 17:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK - I've actually just been trying to use your talk page as a kind of "activity tracking center" in order to keep affected users up-to-date :) but this has gotten way too much out of hand to leave it here.
 * I think I'll just move it to a summary subpage (something like User:Roitr/the suckpuppeteer) so his actions can easily be tracked and reported for administrative actions. --DmitryKo 18:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I filed a request for checkuser and a request for investigation. This guy is probably nominating to obtain his own page on the Long term abuse's Hall of Fame... --DmitryKo 17:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet activity center
I've created a subpage and suggest reporting any suspicious activity to User:Roitr/sockpuppetry so his new bots and IPs can be tracked and banned on sight. --DmitryKo 23:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Tt1
Hi again! I need your help. Now user Encyclopedist initiated permanent block of me insisting I am Tt1. Please help me!--Nixer 12:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocking
Stop to do it and unblock me immediately. Tt1 17:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You are a known sockpuppet of a rampant edit war vandal who has been violating the Three Revert Rule over and over again. The community has lost all patience with you.  Visit: Administrator's Noticeboard if you feel the block was unfair. -Husnock 18:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:SWARSFLTADM.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SWARSFLTADM.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 19:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Gefreiter
You posed a question as to why my edit of Gefreiter indicated something was erroneous, yet the question is answered right after the next paragraph of the article. I've restored the article and moved the paras together for clarity, thanks for pointing that out. Michael Dorosh 19:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Star Trek character
I created this new template to replace the existing one. I already applied it to Jean-Luc Picard, Kathryn Janeway, and Benjamin Sisko. I was wondering if you could give me a helping hand. -- Cool CatTalk 23:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured film ranks
Would you mind if I rotated these images by 90 degrees? Ex: Image:Star Trek Film OF5a.png ? -- Cool CatTalk 23:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * They are not displayed in any of the films worn that way. That would only confuse people. -Husnock 12:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Starfleet officers by rank
Since you have better resource than myself you may want to add personalities that appeared on screen to this list. I know many vice admirals appeared on screen after the motion picture. :) -- Cool CatTalk 11:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Markdanil
Hi! Can you please block Markdanil as a sockpuppet of Tt1? Now he continously vandalizes the article Army ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation and I continuosly revert him.--Nixer 04:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Random thanks
Just wanted to thank you for retagging Image:RHeydrich.jpg, it's not often I see people bother to update image tags unless they have some grudge against a particular image and want to demand it be deleted. Thanks for the effort :) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 10:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Army ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation
Hi, can you please do something about this article. It has been targeted by Roitr and his socks - making life miserable as usual. --Latinus 20:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked the two newest socks for a week. Will block indef if confirmed as Roitr. -Husnock 21:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi there!
I have not seen you around before. Just thought I'd come by and say hi :-) --HappyCamper 21:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

regarding message about metal's page
Yeah, I have it watched. I've noticed that guy is doing some odd things. I'm not even sure what pov he is trying to push? Some of that info is relevant, but it's clearly copy-vio to copy/paste it! Oh well. ---J.Smith 06:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Various unseen or stub Star Trek Classes
You may want to vote here -- Cool CatTalk 02:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That was a completely improper VFD. Each of the ship class articles should have its own VFD page.  Bulk listing several articles under a blank "master article" is against every rule I know about VFDs.  I can't believe that article lasted longer than 5 minutes about wasn't deleted sooner. -Husnock 04:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There is an established procedure regarding bulk-listing related articles: WP:AfD. Lord Bob 04:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately in this case, it wasn't followed. The master article was nothing more than a blank page.  I wasn't aware of the page you are pointing too, though, until nwo yet I still would have speedied deleted the article. -Husnock 05:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I find List of Starfleet ship classes to be very hard to follow. Mind joining the debate? -- Cool CatTalk 20:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Sergeybakh
Hi! Can you please block this sockpuppet of Tt1 and Roitr as he continues to vandalize the article Army ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation? --Nixer 12:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

And could you please semi-protect this article? He now uses anon sockpuppets again.--Nixer 13:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Now he vandalized also History of Russian military ranks, Air Force ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation, Generalissimo, created Chief Marshal of the Air Force of the Russia article. --Nixer 13:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Please semi-protect also these articles: Army officer ranks, Naval officer ranks as they have been also vandalized by anon sockpuppet of Tt1.--Nixer 13:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop to call for infinite war, look here - http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk//69giap/179.0.html is better proof - this point disputable theme. I speak, that there is no official clause in English or in Russian in which is written 100% their exact equivalence. NATO sites, a site the Ministry of Defence of Russia have no such comparative table. -User:Podol
 * The only "endless war" that is going on is a banned user using sockpuppets to violate Wikipedia policy. This newest account has been blocked as a sockpuppet.  Or are you going to try and say you are a brand new user to Wikipedia?  People just dont wnat to hear it, Roitr. -Husnock 16:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Roitr
Can you please semiprotect these articles: Air force officer ranks, Army officer ranks, Naval officer ranks? I am at the limit of the 3RR.--Nixer 11:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think 3RR applies to dealing with a clear vandalism. --DmitryKo 16:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert at Record
Hi Husnock. You reverted me at Record after I tidied the page in line with MoS:DP and stated such in my edit summary. Before deleting the text I also left a post on the talk page giving my rationale for the deletions and requesting comments. Was this just an oversight or did you think my pruning too severe? ~ Veledan • Talk 19:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * My apologies: I reverted your revert before bringing this here, because when I first saw it I assumed it was a simple error made during rc patrol. It was only when I noticed you had recently edited the article I realised it may have been a disgreement ~ Veledan • Talk 19:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I was mainly concerned about the deletion of the link to service record which in effect made it an orphan article. I created the list article Record (administrative) for the disambig page. -Husnock 00:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds a good solution. I should explain the background to this is that when I went through 150 articles that night correcting links to Record for WP:DPL, there were no links in error whatsoever to any of the contexts I removed from the dab page: that's why I judged those articles didn't need to be there; it wasn't that I thought it didn't make sense to put them there in the first place! ~ Veledan • Talk 12:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Stockspic.jpg
Hi. You tagged the image Image:Stockspic.jpg as "Public domain." Could you provide more concrete support for this claim? For instance, a link to a site where the copyright holder explicitly releases it from copyright. Sometimes images appear on multiple Internet sites without the copyright holder's permission. Also, I came across a claim (not by the photographer) that the picture was not public-domain:. If you don't provide more details about the image's licensing within seven days, we'll have to remove it - copyright compliance is extremely important to Wikipedia. Thanks for your help, FreplySpang (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:FrenchlegRib2.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:FrenchlegRib2.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Thuresson 20:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Same as above for Image:FrenchLegion.jpg. Thuresson 20:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Starfleet copyright
People are complaining about the copyrights of the images. It is becoming quite ridiclous. You may want to assist. -- Cool CatTalk 15:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll be quite uninvolved with Wikipedia until the end of April. I am in the middle of a military exercise.  It is very sad.  Paramount can not claim a copyright on three circles worn on a collar, I dont care what people may say. -Husnock 17:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If you can find copyright info about paramount not holding copyrights that would satisfy all parties for certain. I hope to clear this up before your return.
 * Oh and btw DONT GET HURT during the excercise. Thats an order.
 * -- Cool CatTalk 08:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ribons
Your wikipedia ribbon cluster (corresponding to your barnstar awards). Thought you might like it. -- Cool CatTalk 16:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Macarthurcap.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Macarthurcap.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Image legality questions. 23:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Taken care of for you. -- Cool CatTalk 16:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Question
Hi after studying of your User-page I want to ask you some things. Would you like to edit James M. Gavin? Could you find free Images of him in Army archives? Do you want to take part in [this project]? Regards and best wishes, John N. 15:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hitler Youth
Hi there. You protected this about two weeks ago. Since WP:SEMI is for dealing with serious, current vandals, I figure it's been more than long enough to unprotect it now. Can I ask you to check your other recent protections and lift them as necessary, also to remember protections in general? CAT:SEMI is nearly 100 items, most of them seem to have been forgotten by the protecting admin. Thanks. -Splash talk 21:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

John Morton-Finney == ==

Hi,I know this person was a member of the US Army and your Navy but maybe you have crossed paths with someone who has an interest and could pass along. Anyway I was reading random articles and landed on John Morton-Finney it referred to him as being a Buffalo Soldier but was unlinked so out of curiosity I went too look for an article on them, seem a fair chance one would exist, anyway thought I would let you that their could be other notable individuals that are still outthere waiting to rescued. Thought maybe some spare time and a small bot it might be possible to find these men and return them to their regiments. 'Lest We Forget' Gnangarra 13:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sargeant Stubby on Purple Heart Page
Hi, I added a note about the source on the Purple Heart talk page. BTW, I work for the Navy as a civilian, and I just wanted to say thank you for serving our country and God Bless! MamaGeek Joy

Another image problem
The main image I uploaded for the Heinrich Himmler article is being questioned. I know it's PD, and was an archival, formerly SS photo; since you had said This photograph is also available from the National Archives and Records Administration at College Park, Maryland -Husnock 07:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC) I was wondering if you knew the ARC number. User Thuresson is pressing for proof and questioning/disputing it's copyright status. Thanks Nagelfar 15:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no idea (I work in St. Louis, not College Park) but, as an employee of the National Archives, I can state for a fact that the photo in question is available from our agency. I have seen it many times in many publications and it is available on the mirofilm of Himmler's S.S. service record.  If the user in question wants to press it further, he can contact Archives II in College Park and they will tell him the same thing.  The address is: National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road; College Park, MD  20740-6001 -Husnock 15:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What would be interesting to know is why exactly that image was PD in the U.S. Can't you get someone knowledgeable at the NARA to explain that in painstaking detail? See my post at WP:PUI... Lupo 14:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging
Thanks for uploading "Image:Dax.jpg]]". I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page. Thank you. 82.83.98.101 11:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Image was deleted as an orphan with no source. -Husnock 01:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

AFD: Reichsattendentführer
I have AFDed this article you created, you may wish to comment. —Home Row Keysplurge 20:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I also see you labeled the article as a hoax. Thats a bit heavy handed as I certianly didnt create the article to mislead or fool anyone as I above that kind of thing.  I wrote it based on something related to me in college and have tried to find the exact source of the rank, but with little success.  Still, this was never a hoax. -Husnock 01:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Cydebot
This bot hasnt been set up inline with the the CFD that it cites in its edit summaries. I have posted to User:Cyde but after 45 mins there has been no answer, whilst the bot has continued. I suspect that Cyde may not be monitoring Cydebot at the moment, hence before it gets too much further it might be helpful to block it. Many thanks Ian3055 01:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Starfleet ranks and insignia
The copyright nonsense is still present. -- Cat out 18:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

SS Ranks
Dear Husnock, no, the previous translations were not fine. I am a native German speaker and assure you that my smalkl edits were better.Cosal 20:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have studied the SS for almost 20 years and the translations match every text I have ever read. It is also a fact that "Oberst" does not mean "Chief", Oberst is a word for either Colonel or Supreme.  Sturmhauptfuhrer translates directly as "Storm Head Leader" and there were spelling and link problems with your other translations.  Please visit the talk page of the article if you want to make such radical changes to the article. -Husnock 23:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh well, let me return the favor of a lesson in German. "Oberst" means "uppermost". But the issue here is not about the literal translation of a particular word or part of a word, but a sensible translation of the entire term. "Oberst" as a military rank, in German, denotes the uppermost among the non-flag offiers (generals), being higher than a "Major" who in turn is "major" to captains, while "Lieutenants" are literally speaking "place holders" or stand-ins for captains.--  Now to the Hauptsturmführer (that you erroneously designate as Sturmhauptführer here).  Yes, you got the word-by-word translations right, although "Haupt" does not necessarily mean "head", but also means "main". But you would, I hope, not propose to translate "Hauptmann" into "head man" or "main man", but go with the obvious "Captain".  So, Oberstgruppenführer can be translated, literally, as Colonelgroupleader (taking a dictionary and going word by word) or more sensibly as Chiefgroupleader (since that is what it means), and Hauptsturmführer can be translated as "Main Storm Leader" oder "Head Storm Leader", but that does not make it a sensible translation.  While I am at it – "Sturm" literally means either "storm" or "attack", but in the SS it was a "company" and a "Sturmbann" was a batallion.  The SS was an orgfanization of butchers, but that does not mean that we should butcher the translations of their ranks and render them unintelligeble.Cosal 02:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hauptsturmführer was the name of the rank after 1934, before 1934 it was known as Sturmhauptführer. And the translations are not my own design, they are out of the sources for the article.  If you want to change the translations, you should provide a source to back it up.  YOu seem to be taking this a little bit too personally, speaking of "butchering" the article.  Also, this should be discussed on the talk page of the article, not my user page.  Lets move it there from now on. -Husnock 13:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Post from indefinitely-banned user removed
Hello, Husnock, I have removed a post from indefinitely-banned user Amorrow / Fplay / Pinktulip, etc., in accordance with Jimbo's instructions. See second message in this thread. Hope you don't mind. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 17:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I see nothng wrong with posts on talk pages. He's not actually editing articles. -Husnock 18:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Morrow is banned from the project, which means he may not edit any part of it. In particualr, he was banned for harassing an editor, which is the point of many of his edits. Your help in this matter would be appreciated. Cheers, -Will Beback 23:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Will is right. Please do not restore removed comments from banned editors. FeloniousMonk 23:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you all are really stretching it to say what can or cannot be on a user's own talk page. I have no problem if you wish to remove comments, but I may choose to archive them later from the history for my own review. -Husnock 00:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Table of general ranks
General of the Army:


 * France: four-star appointment (not rank), and more accurately translated as "general of an army": viz. général de brigade, "general of a brigade".
 * Liberia: five-star, but paper only.
 * Russia: four-star.
 * Soviet Union: defunct.
 * United States: five-star; no current incumbents.


 * Not to mention the seven equivalent ranks that other countries have which equal a five star position. -Husnock 12:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * None of which (with the possible exception of Armeegeneral) actually translate as "General of the Army". &mdash; Franey 12:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Colonel General:


 * Austria: defunct.
 * England: defunct (and was anyway a title or appointment rather than a rank in the modern sense).
 * France: an office, not a rank.
 * Germany: defunct.
 * North Korea: three-star rank, actually called sangjang, which Daejang  translates as "lieutenant general" rather than "colonel general". I don't know Korean, but I suspect the translation "colonel general" was taken from the corresponding rank in the Soviet army, rather than from the etymology of the Korean word.
 * Russia: three-star.

So, according to the articles you cite:
 * precisely zero countries have a currently active rank of either General of the Army or Colonel General ranking above a plain general;
 * of the two countries which have a five-star rank of General of the Army on their books, one has never used it (and would be rightly accused of absurd posturing if it did so);
 * two countries (if we allow a possibly dubious translation) still use the rank of Colonel General, but as a three star rank.

I think that justifies mentioning the ranks as interesting exceptions in notes below the table, rather than including them among the "more common grades of general". &mdash; Franey 12:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is something that you need to bring up on the talk page of the article, instead of here on my user page. The term "General of the Army" and "Colonel General" are common enough in military literature and military history that they warrant being in the table as far as I'm concerned.  You should post to the talk page and see what other users say -Husnock 12:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You posted on my page: just returning the compliment. &mdash; Franey 12:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Banned user
Hey Husnock. A user who was banned for stalking a Wikipedian (both on- and off-wiki) has been posting things here that he should not. Please email me to talk about this further; sorry to trample on your talk page. &middot; Katefan0 (scribble)/ poll 22:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Your cooperation, please
Honestly, if you are unable or unwilling to do the leg work necessary to verify that /  is indeed indefinitely banned, you 1) have no business restoring comments made by him deleted by other admins; 2) have no business protecting your talk page after restoring those comments.

Your actions have aided a banned, disruptive wikistalker in again revealing the private information of a fellow admin. Do you think that's not an issue and disruptive? Please do not restore the removed comments and avoid becoming part of a larger problem, one which you admit you are unaware. FeloniousMonk 02:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Husnock, Amorrow is not allowed to post anywhere on Wikipedia, and for very good reason. Please allow his posts to be deleted. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This business about deleting things from other people's talk pages is going a bit too far. The original post will at least survive in the edit history.  I have no idea who this banned user was or what the situation entailed, the post was simple archived as a part of my talk page. -Husnock 04:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * With respect, Husnock, if you're not familiar with the details, it would be better not to take a position. This user has engaged in very serious harassment of female editors, including real-life stalking, and as a result is not allowed to post anywhere on the website. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Its over now, but I never really took a position. I was actually only interested in the comment about the Seabee father of the anon user.  Also, the ip address I did not know was confirmed as being the same person as the banned user, only suspected.  Then there were 3 non-admin editors who were blanking my talk page, in an almost edit war fashion.  On this same token, would we be required to purge and delete ever comment on Wikipedia of User:Roitr?  He is a chronic vandal who still posts many messages under several ip addresses.  I would never support a banned editor, but I also dont support censorship of talk pages. -Husnock 13:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a free speech zone, and someone's right to post here ends at the point at which they place another editor in real-life danger of being threatened or harrassed. Not to mention the fact that since he's an indefinitely banned user, his posts and edits are to be reverted, everywhere and anywhere. Indefinitely banned users are no longer welcome on Wikipedia in any shape or form (Roitr included), but harrassers are especially unwelcome. Also, what non-admins are you talking about? Will Beback, FeloniousMonk, myself, SlimVigin and Musical Linguist are all admins. &middot; Katefan0 (scribble)/ poll 13:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The original users who were blanking the page did not identify themselves as admins and the user pages did not indicate them as such. It really seemed to be a collection of editors with a beef about whoever was posting to my page and they were deleting his comments.  There was then no less than an edit war when I tried to restore the comments.  Only when I saw the post from SlimV did I suspect this was legitimate.  My original concern stands that I saw nothing wrong with the posts, did not know this anon ip was associated with a banned editor, and took offense at multiple editors blanking sections of my talk page.  In any event, its over now.  I plan to move on. -Husnock 15:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Will and FM's don't, but mine plainly identifies me as an administrator. Yet, you went on reverting me.  Fairly irresponsible given the situation.  &middot; Katefan0 (scribble)/ poll 20:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nowhere did I call you any names. Stating I am an irresponsible editor is not neccesary.  This is over now and I was simply answering your questions.  Enough of this.  Time to move on. -Husnock 20:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Tones
I apologise if you take my tone as hostile: I was aiming for "robust debate". None of my comments are meant to offend, or to be taken personally; however, I still think I'm right, and will be forthright in saying so. I'll address your specific points on the relevant talk pages, as requested. But please bear this guideline in mind. The beauty &mdash; and the terror &mdash; of Wikipedia is that any user can reduce the most perfectly crafted article to unspeakable confusion, and any other user can just as easily restore it. &mdash; Franey 08:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I generally try and avoid referring to any article by a negative term (i.e. "crazy mess", "illiterate article" or, when I revert, using harsh terms like "edit was stupid", "removing ridiculous information" or something along those lines. You didnt say any of those things, I'm just using them as an example.  More often not, someone somewhere who has worked on the article will take offense.  I try and use more clam sounding terms like "revert questionable info", "article seems to be confusing", etc, and always go to the talk page when it looks like someone will not like the edit.  Just a suggestion.  Good luck improving the Admiral and General articles, I have an idea for a revamp of the entire thing. -Husnock 16:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Roitr
Can you please permablock those socks of Roitr?--Nixer 17:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Deployment
Best of luck in your deployment. I hope you return to us safe, sound, and, if possible, with some GFDL photos of anything picture-worthy. Cheers, -Will Beback 00:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, please be careful. Several of my friends are in Iraq right now, so I feel for you. &middot; Katefan0 (scribble) 01:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've thought about this a good bit today, and wanted to leave a postscript to apologize for having reverted you a few days ago, and for the rest of the unpleasantness that followed. I can understand why you would've wanted to keep some nice thoughts about the Navy on your talk page, and I feel bad for having wrongly suggested you were being irresponsible in doing so.  In retrospect, I should've just let you handle the situation and stayed out of it.  I hope you'll have a chance to check in here to see these good wishes from everyone before you leave, but if not, then I hope they bring you some small measure of comfort upon your safe return.  Best &middot; Katefan0 (scribble) 18:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Best wishes for your safe return, may your tour be short and full of good experiences. Gnangarra 05:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I want to add to that. Although we disagreed recently, my first impression of you was very positive. I will be praying for your safe return. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 22:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:De hfss.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:De hfss.gif, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 80.63.213.182 14:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)