User talk:OberRanks/Archive 1

SS symbols
Please don't add the SS-symbols template back into all the SS articles. The death's head is *only* the symbol of the Totenkopf-SS, and is nothing to do with the Allgemeine SS, for example. The symbol template was added indiscriminately by someone with more enthusiasm than knowledge, who was now blocked for disruptive editing. Thanks. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  14:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I won't make a big deal about it, but the TV symbol was also the standard symbol used on the covers of the SS, making it outside the scope of just the Death's head unit. And the Sig Runes, of course, were used by the entire organization. -OberRanks 21:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair-use images in user space
Please jot down the image names at User:OberRanks/Ranks_Workshop, then remove the fair-use (i.e. Imperial rank) images -- they are copyrighted images used on Wikipedia under the fair-use policy, and the fair-use policy precludes them from being used in user: space. --EEMeltonIV 13:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a feature I've seen a few times where people can link pictures without showing the actual pictures (only a blue link appears). I'd like to do that to prevent a zealous editor from deleting the images before I've had a chance to merge the rank sections into the articles about the characters who hold them.  GA, HG, and GM are the three big ones I plan to merge.  Any chance of showing me about that feature? Thanks. -OberRanks 18:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Type a colon after the opening brackets, i.e. [[Image: becomes [[:Image:  --[[User:EEMeltonIV|EEMeltonIV]] 13:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Your reverts
You seem to have gotten it backwards. *Your* reverts to General of the Armies, which erase all of the material *I* added, is bordering on breaking the policy of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles not to mention that that sort of behavior is generally considered rude. *I* encourage *you* to discuss exactly what *you* have a problem with on the talk page before simply removing all edits not *your* own. - Shaheenjim 00:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so. I removed one paragraph about "some people have said" and "it has specualted that".  I touched nothing else.  You, on the other hand, removed totally new material that was sourced and deleted a picture that was added to the article, also sourced.  Believe it or not, I am actually trying to keep you out of trouble.  The admins on this site usually go with the person who has policy on their side and block people who go against it.  To compromise though, you can put back in the opening paragraph about "some people have said" and we can discuss.  But reverting my every edit, even when it adds legitimate information, is uncalled for. -OberRanks 00:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Grand Marshal
Hey, by any chance do you know the answers to my new questions at Talk:Grand_Marshal? Thanks. - Shaheenjim 07:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look over the next week although my knowledge of the Chinese version of that rank is very low. -OberRanks 12:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How about the question in the Usage section, rather than the question in the Republic of China section? - Shaheenjim 18:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the note. I kind of gathered the same after seeing that editor's talk page, along with the various articles' talk pages and histories. I guess it is what it is here on WP. :-) I'm sure I'll see you around; from your user page, it looks like there's some common page interests. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 21:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Henry H. Arnold
Heh, not long at all. Thanks for the service fixes in the table. I am still trying to find/make a better layout to show the progression of temporary and permanent ranks without being a total jumble. The navy ones were much easier :) See Chester W. Nimitz and William F. Halsey, Jr..  Thanks again. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 13:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Foreign awards for gallantry
With regards to the Medal of Honor page the foreign awards are all listed in the Highest Awards for gallantry template found at the bottom of the page. After a discussion on the peer review for Victoria Cross by the WP:MILHIST, it was thought the information was better placed in a navbox. Any problems with me reverting your changes to Medal of Honor? Thanks Woodym555 14:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. It makes a lot of sense now.  They just seemed to have disappeared the first time I looked. -OberRanks 15:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, i didn't want to revert in case you mistook it for an edit war. Better to inform than to war!! It looks better in the navbox in my opinion. Woodym555 16:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:VietnamAFDSO.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:VietnamAFDSO.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  But | seriously | folks   06:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Last good e-mail address I had for the man who gave me that picture I can sent t you if there is a secure way to do it. -OberRanks 11:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Tips on images
Hi, if there are any images on wikipedia that either you or someone else uploaded under either a free license such as: PD, GFDL, CC-BY-SA, CC-BY, you can transfer them over to the commons, and they will still work just the same on wikipedia. One advantage is that on the commons border line images do not get deleted so easily, the deletion process takes weeks even months, just remember to add the images to your watchlist on the commons. If you would like do transfer images to the commons but don't know how I can explain. Obviously if some images are blatant copyright violations they will be speedily deleted from the commons too, and you shouldn't transfer them if you have doubts as to the veracity of the copyright tag. Jackaranga 14:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will look into it. The recent purge of military insignia images based on personal feelings has left a horrible taste in my mouth.  I will check it out. -OberRanks 14:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  16:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. I will not make any further edits.  Two other users are blanking my comments with Durin, with which I am trying to reconcile a major difference. -OberRanks 16:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well please don't because your comments are obviously been seeing as disruptive. Might I suggest you take a break for 30mins/an hour? There's no need to escalate this further and I've got to tell you that you're very close to a disruption block.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  16:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I plan to do so. Please speak to the other users about removing my edits and calling me a "troll".  Thats uncalled for and violates WP:NPA.  This account is clearly not a vandal/troll account. -OberRanks 16:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have reinstated the comments you made, and told Betacommand and Videus Omnia (spelling may be faulty) to knock it off, as that, at least, was unfair. Particularly on Ryan Postlethwaite's part, who is giving you a 3RR warning right after closing the WP:AN/I thread and ordering you to discuss it on Durin's talk page. However, not all good news, see below.  Neil   ☎  17:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Images
Per Requests for arbitration/Husnock, you were ordered to conscientiously follow Wikipedia's Wikipedia:No original research and image copyright policies when he returns to regular editing. It is clear you have not done so. I am going to ask you to refrain from uploading any images. You may edit existing images, but not revert other editors' edits to images. Breach either of these rules for the next month, and I will block you.
 * WOW. Glad I had my wireless on.  No image uploads for a month?  I'll give you better than that.  I promise to you there will be no image uploads from me for the rest of the YEAR.  That will show good faith, I think. -OberRanks 17:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

After that, if a single image you upload is found to be a copyright violation, it will be another month block.
 * I would expect nothing less. Every image uploaded on this account has been solid, I feel. -OberRanks 17:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Denying you are Husnock at this point will exhaust my patience entirely. If you do, I will stop trying to defend you, and will agree with everyone else that any further accounts you use will be blocked on sight because you will have exhausted the entire community's patience (right now, I'm pretty much the only one with any left for you).
 * Please understand the complexity of that question. Who is Husnock?  Who am I?  We are accounts on Wikipedia.  But who sits at the computer behind the account?  One person, 2, 15?  I once worked in an office where the entire office had one account on Wikipedia.  The point is that I dont think its fair to ask someone who they are in the real world; in fact in todays age its dangerous.  I have activated my e-mail system and will explain it further that way.  Does that answer your question?

Basically, consider this an enforced mentorship. If you experience any problems with other editors, let me know, by email or via my talk page, rather than complain on WP:AN/I.
 * That is wonderful. I would like to again protest the mass deletion of every image Husnock ever uploaded without discussion.  I don't think thats fair, but its a dead horse now. -OberRanks 17:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I should point out that I personally left many of Husnock's images in place and even corrected some of the faulty license tags so that those images would not be deleted by others. Also, there has been extensive discussion of Husnock's images in many places, so I assume you mean only that some of the images were not specifically discussed.  Of course, copyvios do not have to be discussed before being deleted. --  But | seriously | folks   17:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have helped you out by deleting the images you requested, defending your edits, asked people to stop the name calling and reverting of your edits, and so on. Your continuing to act fooliishly will make me look like an idiot for wasting my time on helping you. Neil  ☎  17:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are the prime example of the shining administrator. Your terms are accepted. -OberRanks 17:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you're being sarcastic with that last point, but I will choose to accept it is a complement - thank you. And as regards point the third, let me rephrase - whoever the human is behind this account is the same human that was behind the Husnock account. That is undeniable, I feel. As regards point 4, don't exaggerate - as BSF says, many of the images the Husnock account uploaded are still on Wikipedia (at least 100, I am not going to count). I pointed you towards Special:Log earlier, and a direct link. At this point, you know the restrictions, I am sorry that they need to be enforced, unless you breach them, or need advice, you don't need to hear from me. I will be checking up, though.  Would you mind if I put something on your user page about mentorship? I will put example text below. If you are happy with it, please copy and paste it to your user page (I will not edit it directly). You can change the content if anything particularly bothers you, but don't change anything major.  Neil   ☎  17:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Example text:

This user being mentored by Neil, particularly in the area of image uploads. Please consider contacting Neil rather than any other administrator, via his talk page or email if you feel there are any major problems with this user's conduct or editing you are unable to resolve directly with the user. Thank you.

Which in raw text is:

This user being mentored by Neil, particularly in the area of image uploads. Please consider contacting Neil rather than any other administrator, via his talk page or email if you feel there are any major problems with this user's conduct or editing you are unable to resolve directly with the user. Thank you.

As I said above, change things if you want to (I am not sure what you would be more or less comfortable with), but don't change the meaning or the information. You can put it anywhere on your user page you like. Neil  ☎  17:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess that would work. I also just e-mailed you.  It explains everything. -OberRanks 18:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Email recieved and responded to. No rush on adding that text, some time in the next few days is fine, I would rather you were happy with it first.  Neil   ☎  21:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to sum up
As the above copy has got hard to parse with all the interspersions:


 * 1) No image uploads for a month, or it'll be a month block.
 * 2) For that same month, you may edit existing images, but not revert other editors' edits to images.  Again, a month block if you break this.
 * 3) After that, if a single image you upload is found to be a copyright violation, it will be another month block (and probably more with any repeat "offences").
 * 4) No denying the obvious or I wash my hands of the whole thing.
 * 5) If you experience any problems with other editors, let me know, by email or via my talk page, rather than complain on WP:AN/I.
 * 6) Post the notice to your user page in whatever way you see fit.

That sums it up, I think. Neil  ☎  21:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for putting it up. As regards your message:
 * The Husnock account thing would be a very positive step forward, and I would be very pleased to see that happen.
 * Without proof I strongly suggest you leave the workplace stuff lie rather than cause any further agitation without anything to back it up. I would similarly suggest you not send any emails to that particular person, either, as no good will come of it.  I have spoken to them, and they insist no such thing happened  Without any proof, it is your word against theirs, and given the relative standings and histories of you and the other person on Wikipedia, the majority of people will tend to believe the other person.
 * User:Pahuskahey - if it is indeed not you, then no action needs to be taken to look into any comments unless the user themselves expresses a concern. If it is not you, then you should not fight their battles for them - doing so only makes it look more like the user is/was you.
 * The thing on the CC page stays. If it's not you, it's someone who works with you, so would effectively be a "meatpuppet". Neil   ☎  15:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree on the points. That user can fend for himself; and I realized now that both he and the person who made the threat aren't active on the site anymore.  And do not worry, I will not bring up any issue about that other person on this site; although I might still use the OTRS to get that page taken down or at least redistributed the image concerns amongst official Wikipedia pages.  Also might still send a private e-mail betwen him and me; will remain professional but that user knows what that user did with regards to real world affairs.  I will keep any of that of off Wikipedia.  Lastly, regarding the permanent notice on the CC page, I ask again that this be taken down as it will no doubt be used against me in the future.  I already had one user reinstate the page with the comment "let the record stand".  I guess I could try and find someway to locate the IT who put up the page and ask him to request it be deleted, but that would take a very long amount of time.  If you really want to stay up, then so be it.  OH yes, and I did as I said and reactive the H account as promised.  Tks -OberRanks 03:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * CC page has been replaced with indefblockeduser, though I will again say not to email OTRS without evidence as no good will come of it, nor will emailing that particular user. Neil   ☎  17:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
For the headsup on the deletion review. -- But | seriously | folks   17:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

USAF Occupational badges
Bad news, good news. Bad news is that some of the USAF occupational badges have to be deleted due to lack of source. Good news, I have found replacements at. They are public domain due to a message at. I am thinking of getting the "EPS files" since we can make those in SVG files. I am not sure how you are at doing stuff like this, but I figured you might at least enjoy the sound of it. Honestly, my main goal isn't to rid every single image we can off of the site; we just have to be stern about what we do. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion area for United States General articles
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history for a common discussion area. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 18:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:A Good Friend
You're welcome. I do admit I was harsh with the issue, but you understand where I am coming from now. I also administer the Wikimedia Commons and we tend to be harsher on copyright there than here, but I am usually involved in the "most obvious" cases and I do image drawing. I will try and get some more insignia up, but I am a little tied up now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Step in the right direction
I hope you are able to keep moving forward. -- But | seriously | folks   09:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This website has caused me some pain, and there are some real world affects that somethings have caused. But, then, I have to say it is only the internet.  I shouldnt take it so seriously. -OberRanks 09:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's hard sometimes, but I try to take pleasure in the good, and take the bad with a grain of salt. --  But | seriously | folks   19:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Generals
I don't think there was any need to complain to me or on WP:AN/I about this. There's a discussion ongoing, which both yourself and SJ are involved in. Continue that discussion, rather than complain. It's not an admin issue. Neil  ☎  09:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems to have calmed down and thank you as well for the splash of cold water on the noticeboard. I do think a minor warning should be directed to the other user as it is a fact that he/she posted in an edit summary that I was "self centered", clearly breaking WP:NPA.  As for the other issues, WP:CON and so forth, other editors are coming out now to help with the resolution.  Thanks for your assistance. -OberRanks 10:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. As the two of you are now working to resolve the merge issue, I don't think a warning would do anything positive.  Neil   ☎  10:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably right at this stage. Best to just let it go and move on.  (Got this just 2 seconds after posting to your page on the very same issue). -OberRanks 10:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

United States General family of articles
Thanks for the note on my talk page. I added my 2 cents of opinion to the mix. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 00:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the note too. Please note that my focus, and talk, will be confined to the the General of the Armies page. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 00:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Re your note on my talk page
Thanks for trying to contribute and improve the General family of articles in a positive manner. I hope that all involved can weather the storm and continue to make a better reference for those people seeking information about the highest ranking of America's armed forces. And thanks for the comment about my most recent edits to the GotA article. I was trying to keep a neutral tone and improve the flow and content, glad to know that I was able to do that at least for one reader (-: &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 06:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Moroccon Medal Pic
Hi there. I think we should consider undeleting Image:OrderOA.jpg. It was at least two years ago that I uploaded it, but this was a photograph of an original medal which an employee of the National Archives took and released to public domain. I'm fully prepared to give you an address to verify this and even the direct phone number of the employee who took it. This is not a stolen picture, it is legit and also very rare since very few of these medals exist anymore. I think this one can safely be put back on Wikipedia. -OberRanks 12:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * These two as well fall under the same category. Pictures sent directly to me by an employee of the National Archives.
 * Image:LuxCDGcit.jpg, Image:LuxWarCross.jpg -OberRanks 12:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This one too: Image:WherHonClasp.jpg. Different employee, but again a picture straight from an original taken at the National Archives. -OberRanks 14:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Rather than an address/phone number, it would be better to have the employee send an e-mail from his official e-mail address - this can be filed at OTRS. Or you can forward the e-mail you recieved, complete with headers - this is what I normally do with image permissions. Videmus Omnia Talk  12:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * He's right. An email from NARA to OTRS confirming that s/he took the image in the course of his/her duties or otherwise releases it would be best.  And that would solve the problem, as long as the underlying medal is also in the PD.  --  But | seriously | folks   17:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Badges of the United States Navy
I noticed most of the unsourced images on this page (deleted by OrphanBot) were upped by you. I will take care of this article. I'll have everything re-upped with proper sources by the end of this month. Also, as a heads up, I will be using a completely different format than the 2-column format you used. Just thought you should know. Jigen III 14:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * People on this site have sadly gone after images that I uploaded with a fury, beyond the hope of ever repairing the mass deletions. Thanks for your efforts with this.  I doubt I will upload anything else to this site as even with sources and proof, the sources themselves are often challenged.  Many people have said many things about how a lot of these images were stolen; I've never knowingly stolen an image and the ones deleted from that article were striaght off a CD from my office.  In the end, we all must accept that this a thankless website and anything written or uploaded can and probably will be changed or deleted.  Thats fine.  The important stuff that I feel strongly about I've turned to professional publishing.  Thanks again for your efforts on this article. -OberRanks (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Fleet Admiral
What possible motivation could you have for making Fleet Admiral and Admiral of the Fleet separate articles, rather than having one redirect to another? They said almost exactly the same thing. The only thing that Fleet Admiral had that Admiral of the Fleet didn't was the fictional section, so I added that to Admiral of the Fleet. Although Admiral of the Fleet had that too until it was deleted on 3 September, 2007. - Shaheenjim 21:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The redirect you did works fine, thanks for the effort. The first redirect wiped out all the links to the other FA articles.  That problem appears to be corrected with your redirect.  tks -OberRanks (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Monitoring
Why has this been removed? has this been agreed with neil? --Fredrick day (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Since there hasnt been much mentoring going on, and since I've made a personal choice not to upload any more images to this site, there really is little need for it any further. Also as the holidays are upon us, my activity on this site will probably drop to very little between now and next year. -OberRanks (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There hasn't been much direct mentoring, but I have been watching. :) No problem with it being removed,especially as OR has stopped uploading images. Neil   ☎  13:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek TOS rank images
Hey I have some images that I created from pictures of rank braid from the original series. I can upload them but I don't really have the time or knowledge for creating a table to put them in. Any way we can collaborate on this? I have Ensign, Lt. JG, Lt., Lt Comm, Commander, Captain, Commodore, Rear Adm, Vice Adm, Adm, and Fleet ADM. Just let me know.

Thanks! --Flans44 02:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The history of that article
I would say just go ahead and upload them and see what happens, making sure of course that they are clearly marked as created by you and released into the public domain. That article sadly has a very violent and troublesome history which is why I stay away from it now. It was created some years ago by myself and another user named Coolcat and existed in peace for sometime before we tried to make it a Featured Article. It was blasted pretty hard then, but the concerns were valid. Then about a year later a group of folks came along which started making a huge deal about the insignia images which led to some heated accusations that Coolcat/myself had deliberately stolen them from Paramount Pictures and violated copyright law. Anyway, the reaction of Coolcat and myself wasn’t professional either (I admit I was a jerk back then) and Coolcat eventually left Wikipedia and I got completely disgusted with the article and the people who were (in my opinion) trying to ruin it. I was also deployed to the Middle East at the time and was under enormous pressure so I wasn’t the most civil person about it all. Anyway, I have tried to break back into the article, but a third round of nastiness occurred when the article became the “property” of certain users who removed all edits not their own and engaged in some pretty nasty attacks against those who were editing it. Don’t take my word for that, it’s all on the talk page of that article. Anyway, one user in particular (who I don’t mention since we seem to be at peace now) took issue that I was in the Navy and made some very hateful remarks about this (that person had been involved with the Army and I guess didn’t like the Navy) and then tried to make it personal by taking it into the real world with ip address traces, trying to find out where I lived, and nonsense like that. On top of all that, these efforts actually backfired since it came up during the process that the person doing this might have done some questionable things on the internet with other people. Anyway, that is over and done with now but the point is there is some extremely bad blood floating around about that article. I would harm the article if I returned to it since my association would surely draw fire. I encourage you to improve and do what you will with it. New people and new edits would help. Thanks for your concern with this and good luck! -OberRanks (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * these efforts actually backfired since it came up during the process that the person doing this might have done some questionable things on the internet with other people. - That sounds very interesting. Do you have a diff or page history to point toward? Surely I'd want to be wary of someone who's made such questionable contributions. --EEMIV (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Sniff sniff sniff sniff" I smell paranoia! :-) Did you assume I was talking about you? (I wasn't).  Anyway, what happens off Wikipedia should stay off Wikipedia; I have no interest to discuss or bring up things that have gone on/are going on in the real world.  As for you and I, we have no problems right now that *I* know about! Best. -OberRanks (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. It's too bad that such a fun article can become such a problem.  Thanks for creating it though.  Is there anyway to pull the old html tables out of the history and I can just place the images in those tables?  I just don't know where to start to recreate them.  --Flans44 02:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flans44 (talk • contribs)

Best of luck to you. I like the new insignia but I think Rear Admiral and has one stripe above the bulk stripe and Admiral has two instead of below as you have depicted it. It is also a sad fact that if the people I mentioned are still around, they will probably revert your edits without discussion. But, perhaps not. -OberRanks (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Flag Admiral (Star Trek)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Flag Admiral (Star Trek), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.startsurfing.com/encyclopedia/f/l/a/Flag_Admiral_e30a.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Will answer this on the talk page. -OberRanks (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Flag Admiral (Star Trek)
A tag has been placed on Flag Admiral (Star Trek), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. --EEMIV (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think an earlier version of this article was part of the larger AfD that led to redirects for the assorted rank articles to point toward Starfleet ranks and insignia, so I removed the CSD flag. Considering it's in the same vein as the others, though, I've redirected it to that broader topic. If there are substantiating secondary sources offering enough real-world material to justify a forked article, then go for it. Otherwise Starfleet ranks and insignia is the appropriate place to mention and cite flag admiral-related material. --EEMIV (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Go for it man. I think its a pretty puny article as it stands. The only noteworthy thing is how Hollywood Pins turned into a pretty famous pin back in the 90's. I still have mine. -OberRanks (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Blueyellowribbon.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Blueyellowribbon.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a generic blue and yellow ribbon which I drew myself on the computer. It wasn't stolen from anywhere and isnt under any copyright.  The original ribbon which it depicts was used over 110 years ago.  The picture can easily be re-created and is a trival image at best.  I see no reason for it to be tagged for deletion.  I would suggest "possibly unfree images" if there is further debate but I really don't see how you can say that this picture is a copyright violation against anyone. -OberRanks (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Patton (flim)
I reverted your edit to the article Patton (film). While what you wrote may or may not be true, the style in which you wrote is not very encyclopedic.


 * 1) Waffle words: "rather nonchalantly"
 * 2) Waffle words: "This is highly unlikely"
 * 3) Who says: "since Patton was well known for strict adherence to military regulations"
 * 4) Who says: "Patton was also known for refusing to display any medal or ribbon on his uniform until he had verified entry of the award into his service record."
 * 5) Waffle words: "It is therefore extremely improbable"
 * 6) Who says: ''"that Patton would have donned the insignia of a higher rank without proper authorization
 * 7) Invalid or incomplete source and incorrectly sourced for the material cited: "(Source: Service record of George Patton, NPRC)"

Please see:


 * Writing better articles
 * Words to avoid
 * Manual of Style (biographies)
 * Citing sources
 * Verifiability

Please find a good verifiable source for that scene in the movie, not "what ifs" based on other things.

~ WikiDon (talk) 02:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Redandblueribbon.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Redandblueribbon.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. 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. Sdrtirs (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I attempted to update the tag to reflect that this image is public domain. Its a trival image easily created on any computer.  Basicly just a red and blue ribbon.  The original ribbon from the 19th century isnt under any current copyright claim per the U.S. Navy (verified this in an e-mail with one of the Navy's medals and decorations experts).  Does that solve the issue? -OberRanks (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)