For your help on United States Army enlisted rank insignia of World War II. Its always nice to see the collective WP editorial mind pitch in and improve things. Well done. — MrDolomite • Talk 02:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you check my reading of his awards and decorations? I'm especially concerned that I counted the number of Good Conduct Medals. The clasp looks silver instead of bronze to me. -- Gogo Dodo 07:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undoubtedly silver, two loops; you are correct. On the Southwest Asia Service Medal, I think those are silver stars not bronze. I am not sure on the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal and Global War on Terrorism Service Medal as the colors are all washed out on my screen, for example the pattern is correct but on one side you will have the yellow stripe but the other side will be peach colored. Possibly bad reproductions. Everything else is correct to my eye. --< Nicht Nein! 15:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Southwest Asia Service Medal has to be two bronze stars, not silver, as bronze stars are the only stars authorized for issue per section 5c. I'm pretty sure that I have the two Global War on Terrorism medals correct as they are the only ones that fit the order of precedence and stripe pattern. -- Gogo Dodo 07:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They also could have had a costume error, it is a show not the military as you know. --< Nicht Nein! 16:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

True. Thanks for the help. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I can live with that. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not being critical, just asking the justification for the 'seven plus one from the 29th...' edit for SPR? Why the need to specify the difference? It reads kind of klunky to me.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, someone added the "29th" tidbit to the cast section and I felt it was out of place there. Moving it to there, I feel, is a good way of preserving that persons edit in good faith. It also helps explain the specifics of the groups make up, 7 being Rangers and 1 being an "outsider" so to speak. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool. Makes sense from that perspective. Thanks for answering!--Lepeu1999 (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to United States Marine Corps. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What are you talking about? The information is verified in the picture of the heading I changed. Even in the description page it is verifiable. The title of the picture also needs to be changed as he is a Marine and not a soldier. >-- Nicht Nein! (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We all make mistakes from time to time, this is one of them for me. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you would like to have a say in wether or not Pvt. Jackson is a sniper, go to WP: Film talk page and there should be a section discussing it. I support the Idea that he was a Marksmen. Yojimbo501 (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your opinion. I didn't post this on the SPR talk page because I wanted to keep "Swat" as far away from the picture as possible. What do you think of the guy referencing an interview with Barry Pepper (as facinating as it was) just because it had the word "sniper" in it. He even changed the title! That was presumably so it would look like he had more evidence. Even if by default we just don't do anything, we need to take out that referecence. Yojimbo501 (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I replaced "Sniper" with "Marksmen", under the pretense that it's closer to what he actually was. I also left a message saying that I replaced it on the not a sniper! section. SwatJester is being ignorant for not paying attention to history. Yojimbo501 (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good! --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. Sorry I forgot that he's a marksman and not a marksmen (I didn't know if there would be a redirect issue or something). I intend to tell Swat Jester he is ignorant about the issue if he continues to undo our edits. But as it is, I don't think he's edited Saving Private Ryan in a while, so maybe he's just given up. Yojimbo501 (talk) 03:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was already brought up by another user; it was agreed that another word would be used so that no further confusion took place.— Dædαlus^Contribs /_Improve 06:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shouldn't have been confusion in the first place. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Her birthyear has already been discused at length over at User_talk:Annoynmous#Rachel_Weisz; the matter was posted to Wikipedia:Third opinion and the third opinion given (at [1]) supported leaving both dates in. For the record, the IMDB is not a reliable source and neither is "http://www.chickipedia.com". Nor are any other random internet websites with no credited authors or sources. They certainly don't add anything to the conversation or help resolve this any more definitively. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are "more" reliable than "http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/", and I had sited three sites compared to the one stating 1971 as the year. Discussed at length? You are the only person disputing there with a poster who shares my view.

Furthermore if you do a search you will find many sites are listing her birth as being in 1971. Among them: askmen.com, imdb.com, rottentomatoes.com, superiorpics.com, celebritypro.com, answers.com, popstarsplus.com, actressarchives.com, perfectpeople.net, tiscali.co.uk, etcetera. I found two that list 1970, but both list both years and one site was just created last week and has just copied the first paragraph from Wikipedia. The other site being movies.yahoo.com and they list 1970 in the first paragraph and list 1971 later after "Born:". One site even says that "Although that not all sources agree with each other, Rachel was born in July 1971, in London, UK.", which is interesting because I could see the 3/7 as March 7th flipped around as July 3rd.

I won't deny that it is quite probable that most of these sites probably get their info from one another, but it is still the most accepted. I think that it should be left as 1971 and further down in the article make a section discussing the disputed dates. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I amended this previously to 1970 - Companies House records for her company list her as a director, and record her birthdate as 1970. This is an official record that, as far as I'm aware, must be factually correct. It is not however possible to provide an accessible link, as you need to pay to access the info online. Nevertheless, it would not be hard to check for yourself. 86.0.112.90 (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you put some of the correct wording in this article. Thanks. I was getting a little tired of the "hype" about calling her a heroine and harping on about her nationalty. Unfortunately, Australians tend to be quick to "own" New Zealand born people who have spent any time there. To my mind, if people move around from country to country, best to mention where they were born and where they died, and not to dwell to much on the nationality. Wallie (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I admire your zeal for making changes, I'm confussed on why you must remove a lot of good information from the pages. I do not understand why you keep removing the links of "one-star" to "four-star" from their respective pages, for the U.S. is the only country that actually uses only stars the represent their general and flag officers. Also Title 10 of the U.S. Code of law does not recognize, state, or specify the grade of O-11; specifically 10 U.S.C. § 3281, 10 U.S.C. § 8281 and 10 U.S.C. § 5502. In other words by law, there is no grade of O-11. Now I have reworded the page again in hopes to find a balance between you and I on these pages to avoid a revert war. Instead of making direct changes, please contact me so we can work out a conpromise. Neovu79 (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The term used was grade, I interpreted the sentence as meaning that the grade was not in use or recognized.

It is silly to say four-star general, three-star general, etcetera. Even worse is writing three-star lieutenant general for example, as if there is any other kind of lieutenant general in the United States armed forces. This is not good information, this is like "general fan-boy" speak. I believe it is also redundant to refer to the insignia of four stars as being a "four star" rank insignia. The ranks should be referred to as, general, lieutenant general, major general, brigadier general. I left the "star" speak in there, but fixed some of the grammar. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 04:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with this statement to an extent. Since this is Wiki, people all around the world look at this page as a resource. however, as ignorant as it sounds, there are a lot of poeple out there who can tell the difference of a one-star general officer grade from a thw-star general officer grade. I wrote this way to help the, dare I say "dummies" out there to help them understand. Neovu79 (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about the rank, not the person holding the rank. As you stated. "A general", as in the person holding apointment and not the rank it self... The rank is "general", not "four-star general". You are correct in this type of wording, however the article says "four-star general officer" which completely changes the entire context of the sentence as per 10 U.S.C. § 525 and 10 U.S.C. § 526. P.S. please leave a message on my talk page. I didn't get your last message until late since it was written on your talk page. Neovu79 (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it does not absolve the usage of "four-star" throughout the article. The sentences were referring to the person holding the rank in more than one place, so I just fixed the grammar in the other areas of the sentence. I would have removed the "as" and "ans" as well. Congratulations on pushing your view. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome! I noticed that your Username shows up red when you post an edit -- in case you were wondering why, this is because your userpage is devoid of content. If you were to place anything at all on your userpage (text, photographs, etc.), your username would then appear blue by default. By convention, most serious contributing editors place information about themselves on their userpages, and as a result, editors whose usernames are still red may appear to other editors as lacking a serious motivation in both editing Wikipedia articles as well as joining the Wikipedia community at large. I therefore recommend that you place something on your userpage, such as information as to where you live or what your hobbies are. You can check out other editors' userpages to get an idea of what is normally included (find them easiest by checking the history tab on randomly chosen yet substantial articles), and even copy/paste from their userpages (modifying the information to reflect your's, of course). Even the manner in which your name appears may tell a little bit about your character and personal style (if the default blue is not your cup of tea, you can copy/paste a username format from another editors' post, and put that information into my preferences at the top of your page after you sign in, modifying it, of course, to include your usename.) This may help you feel like you're more engaged and integrated into the culture of Wikipedia. Please contact me if you'd like any more advice. :) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, you caught me! Having a blank user page helps me feel less "engaged and integrated into the culture of Wikipedia". I think it is tacky publicity stunt to list information about myself. I am not looking for recognition. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, the article was redirected to Linda Hamilton for a reason. She is not notable for her own article, she only played for 1 minute in 1 movie. All the info about her (almost none) is much better suited for the Linda Hamilton article. Garion96 (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that she is not notable enough for her own page, but it should be deleted and not have a redirect. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why? Redirects are cheap. There is a chance someone might look her up after seeing T2. All the info about her, as little as it is, will then be found by that reader on the Linda Hamilton article. Garion96 (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the average person, it is not immediately clear that they have been redirected, and it is more efficient in the dissemination of information to make it clear that you are viewing the page of their sister and not them. The page should be turned into a disambiguation, with a sole link to Linda Hamilton with an explanation as to why, or list on the Linda Hamilton page at the very top, that if they were looking for a page on Leslie Hamilton Gearren, she is not notable enough and they have been redirected to a page on her sister because she is notable and Leslie Hamilton Gearren is discussed in it. Just not in so many words and not specifically that way. The way I see it now, you are being forced to view a page on someone else with out consent, ordering one thing and getting another and being forced to figure it out by yourself. It shouldn't be like this, it should be clear. It is alright, push your view. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not what disambiguation pages are for. They are to link to two or more articles. The way you would do it, people would edit that page and we will end up having again an article about her. Merge and redirect is a common method in Wikipedia in cases like this. So what are the options?

• Option 1: You could delete the redirect but people might be looking for her after seeing T2, so that option makes that people can't find the info.
• Option 2: Making a disamb page. Which eventually will turn out into an (albeit mini) article about her.
• option 3: Merge and redirect which was done. People can search the name, see the info which is still there, but a mini article won't be made. Garion96 (talk) 11:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are forgetting the other option I put forth; lets call it "option 4", make people aware of that on the Linda Hamilton page. I doubt many people will search for her after watching T2, I doubt many people even know it is her sister and not her. I can agree now that a disambiguation page is not a great idea. There are many things that you can search for and not find on Wikipedia, so conversely, as lets say "option 5", you can leave it as any other subject matter that can be searched and not found, you get a list of relevant articles. The Linda Hamilton and T2 articles would be them. Your way is guileful. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 11:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That would work if wikipedia's search engine improves. Right now searching in Wikipedia is almost pointless if there is no article or redirect. Anyway, just look at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Merging. The example given there is almost exactly the same as in this case. Plus, I can't really delete an article or redirect without a wp:afd or wp:rfd nomination since this does not fall under 1 of the speedy deletion criteria. Garion96 (talk) 11:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then go with "option 4". --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

media wiki already works like that. It specifically states "(Redirected from Leslie Hamilton Gearren)". Garion96 (talk) 12:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which is hard to spot. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 12:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is your obsession with this? You prefer the article/redirect to be deleted but you still insist on making a large link to the redirect on the Linda Hamilton article. There probably is no rule against it simply for the reason of all the 10000's redirects on Wikipedia it never is used that way. Which makes sense since it has no benefits. Especially no benefit for one who thinks the redirect should be deleted.... Garion96 (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My obsession is for what I believe is right. It is not large, I thought it was actually to small. It has been up there like that since August and no one ever complained. If you can't find a Wikipedia "rule" that states this is a violation of policy, I will consider your actions vandalism, since you are removing information that betters the article. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism before accusing someone of it. This simply is a (minor) content dispute. So far you still haven't explained why you think it is right. A redirect does not warrant a huge link on the topic of redirection. Just look at this page for examples. Garion96 (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I said I would personally consider it that way, not that I would write you up on it. You are looking for no alternative, this is easy and understandable. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But it is not needed and it puts too much emphasis on Leslie Hamilton Gearren. You agree that the article on her could be deleted since she is not notable enough. The info was merged on the Linda Hamilton article ergo the redirect. When people search directly for her, mediawiki will point out that the user is being redirected, which is good. Right now however it shows that message to everyone looking at the Linda Hamilton article. Putting way too much emphasis on a not notable person. The point of that redirect was actually to stop that emphasis. I am not looking for another solution because basically, it doesn't need it. If you want a bigger redirect message, perhaps you can post a message on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), but this is a bad solution. Garion96 (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No I don't want a bigger redirect message. Make a new section in her article about her sister. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then do so! You are the editor working on the Terminator (and related) article. I just merged the other article. Garion96 (talk) 06:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The rank images are acceptable representation of the ranks. Please do not delete them without discussing first. Also, for Navy and Marine rank insignia regulations, go here. [2] Neovu79 (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And what am I supposed to do with that? The insignia shown is clearly not the same as the Army and Air Force. Also, "Lieutenant. Two silver bars, attached near the ends." is easily understandable.

It is not false information. The rank insignia shown is not an acceptable representation. It is false information. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are attached at the ends to keep them uniform as are the stars of a general or flag officer which are within regulations. For example, GEN Peter W. Chiarelli, the current Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army, wears his four-stars on his shoulders without a connecting bar. However, GEN David Petraeus, the current Commanding General, Multi-National Force - Iraq, wears his four-stars with a connecting bar. The bars connecting bars doesn't mean anything when it comes to rank insignia regulations. P.S. Are you even in the military? Neovu79 (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citing regulations does not absolve the issue, the point is that there are separate insignia. It is simple to amend the photo, or amend the caption. Don't just be complacent, I thought the objective here was to inform people. Some, or most people reading the articles, would never know there are separate insignia. Give the information. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You lost me. What seperate insignia are we refering to? Because the Navy, NOAA Corps and the PHSCC all wear the same corresponding paygrade rank insignia on the collar(s) of their kaki uniforms when is comes to commission officer as per universeral dress and insignia code set by all uniform services. Neovu79 (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, for example, as you know, on the oak leaves one has a thick stem that is curved and the other has a thin stem that is straight and on the O3 bars one is connected at the extreme ends, and the other more towards the center. Yadda yadda yadda...

Your statement is very true, to the extent. The Deparment of Defense officially recognizes one standardized insignia format for all the uniformed services [3]. Two, you also have to keep in mind that each branch has their own uniform supplier and contractors that make their uniforms so small variations and individual branch customizations are bound to happen. The average Joe or Jane does not pay particular attention to subtle details like that. To them, they just see the silver oak leaf and not the stem, and correspond it to a Lt. Colonel or a Commander. don't think people understand that the tiny subtle changes Neovu79 (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will not revert the edits, you can have it the way you want it. I know it is menial to you, and you only care about what is satisfactory. I am slowly getting used to leaving people alone with and their "babies".

It is true that I'm particularly fond of these pages considering the amount of time and effort I've invested in them. Changes are always welcome. While I may not agree with some of the changes you've made, however I hope that we can communicate and work out a consensus or compromise for the betterment of the articles. Neovu79 (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also I didn't think the article was about uniform regulations, I must have been wrong. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well it's not entirely about uniform regulations though the information might help people understand that it isn't alway cut an dry. For example, I haven't had to the time to research much of the history of the ranks nor have I had time to explain the subtle differences in each rank yet have uniform insignia regulations. Maybe that's something you can lend a hand in creating? :-) Neovu79 (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My point exactly, is that "The average Joe or Jane does not pay particular attention to subtle details like that.", so we should educate them and make a point of it in the articles. I did not edit the captions, etcetera, just to, but to encourage others to add new pictures of the Navy/MC variant. I wholeheartedly believe it is in the interest of betterment of the articles, to have the Navy/MC variants recognized, so if you hold to "no it will not be under my watch", there cannot be a compromise. At the very least a mention of the variants in the articles, especially as a stopgap. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I never said that you shouldn't add or create the correct image, however deleting to old on doesn't make it better, not when it still applies to several services. Neovu79 (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is misleading in my opinion, even if just a little, which I admit it is just a little... --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi

What's your logic, please, for saying that "bobby on the beat" is a nickname for policemen? DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Colloquialisms are not always world widely recognized, you know. It had a reference. It is a nickname for a policeman that is patrolling. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I agree with you entirely. I think we need to explain that "bobby on the beat" refers only to policemen that are patrolling, as another editor seems to think that the nickname applies to all officers whatever they are doing. But given that "bobby on the beat" is a) restricted pretty much to the UK and b) restricted to those that are doing a specific thing I wonder if it belongs in the lead about police officers worldwide? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I am sure it is used to refer to a police man anytime as well, just because it is incorrect doesn't mean that people don't do it. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have plenty of references that indicate that it is used to mean patrolling police officers. If you look around you will find plenty of references saying things like "the bobby on the beat has vanished in our time". That doesn't mean the policeman has vanished, it simply means that the foot-patrolling policeman has vanished. Why do you think it is used to refer to those who are not on patrol? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is irrelevant. Self-explanatory. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you mean it is 'self-explanatory' that it only refers to policemen on patrol? I don't think so. Those not used to English slang will find it confusing - like I said there is at least one other editor who seems to think that the term refers to all policemen, whether or not they are on patrol. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your question was. I think you need to read over my second reply a few times until you, well, get it.--< Nicht Nein! (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm glad that you think my question was self-explanatory, but I would really like you to answer it. I have read your second reply with all the detail required, but it doesn't answer my point. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obviously it wasn't with all the detail required if you did not get it. I am referring to the incorrect use of the word. Your references to the correct usage of the word are irrelevant. You can add that the term is correctly used to describe a patrolling policeman, but don't state it is never used incorrectly to refer to all policemen, because obviously you have an example of one such case. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, the statement "there is no established equivalent five-star rank in the other four uniformed services" is obviously incorrect, so I'm not sure why you put it back after I removed it. The equivalent five star ranks for the other services are Fleet Admiral and General of the Army. A Fleet Admiral would also have authority over the United States Marine Corps (which is subordinate to the Department of the Navy) as well as the United States Coast Guard, since it is a wartime rank and the USCG is subordinate to the Navy during wartime. Worldruler20 (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There are seven uniformed services, three have an established "five-star" rank and four do not. The USCG and USMC are separate services. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 02:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for "fixing Nancy Wake". Most appreciated.
It would be really useful to people like me if you used the edit summary - nothing elaborate, just a simple "rv v" (revert vandalism) would save people like me the effort of working out what you'd done.
Again, Thank you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that refer directly to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research. If you wish to include information about how the game performed commercially, then you need sources. If you know of other parts of the article that are OR, then remove them. The little that is left after I removed the OR (e.g. Hidden & Dangerous 2 is a tactical shooter computer game developed by Illusion Softworks and published by Gathering of Developers and Take-Two Interactive. The player controls a four-man British Special Air Service (SAS) team during World War II, conducting a wide variety of operations behind enemy lines. The game is set in a number of World War II battle theaters, from Burma to Norway.) is not OR because the game is the source. Also, reversions are not minor edits, so don't label them as such, it is misleading.Mr T (Based) (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All my edits are marked as minor, automatically. They are minor, I am one person in a large collection of people editing articles. I don't wish to add the information, you just wiped out half an article after it had been that way for months. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, since our little and unpleasent conversation has come to an end, I am sure that you will not be bothered if I erase it. About the Stargate article, when you said that you were convinced that I was the same boy from the mentioned article, I can tell you that you are obviously wrong. You are making false assumptions. But you know, according to the 18th article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion." You can think what you wish. In this subject, your opinion to me is irrelevant. Raven21niner

Obviously it is not, because you keep coming back. Obviously this and obviously that. You are very funny. Oh and as a side note, it is not very obvious that you are not the same person in question. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My intention is not to be funny, if it were, I would be working in a circus. Secondly, I am not a fan of stargate. I do not know nothing about that, so it is obvious that I would not edit an article about a subject that I know nothing about. And if I keep coming back, is because you think i'm some guy from a stargate article I never saw in my life. As I said, you think what you want. Raven21niner

As I will... --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even in discussion areas, you're opinion is simply that... Its an area for the recommendation of valid additions or comments to the article, not your playground. If anything rant about Lee on his discussion section, as I'm sure it will be at home with other venomous feelings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omegared25 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's nice, it's just too bad that I didn't write that. I am just stopping the censorship. It is being removed under the pretense of, was it, "correcting racism"? Well, if your case is that it has nothing to do with bettering the article, then that is fine, but don't go erasing peoples opinions you disagree with. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

However valient you felt your quest, and however snide you feel the erasure, thank you for understanding the vial language and intent of the 'opine' and the need to keep the wiki' informative. Thank you.--< omegared25 (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have added the following to your comment about which patch is correct:

That previous statement may be correct for the period after 1983, but for the period that the 1st, 5th and 7th SFG(A) served in Vietnam, 1959-71, (before the SF Tab was developed) if you were jump qualified and assigned to the SF unit, you wore the beret, the SSI w/Airborne Tab (unit patch), and you were considered a "Green Beret". If you did not have jump wings, you wore the "fatigue" uniform cap or maybe you got away with a "boonie" hat, and always the unit patch. There were approximately 42 warrant officers assigned to 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne) between 1965 and 71 that wore the beret but have never been awarded the SF Tab. Not every soldier assigned to SF had the opportunity to attend the SF Qualification course but none-the-less served in the unit and wore the beret IF they had jump wings. The Army Regulation 600-8-22 authorizes the SF Tab retroactively for all ranks except warrant officer.

There was one other bennie to serving with SF in RVN, the CIB. It seems any soldier, with any MOS, assigned to SF and DESIRING to go out on patrol and thus finding himself in an exchange of gun fire with the enemy was entitled to be awarded the Combat InfantryMAN Badge. Meyerj (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meyerj (talk • contribs)

Well, that was nice of you to give me a heads up. Yes, I know; the article in question is not about the historical "period" by default. It should have current information in infoboxes

for example. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hit the wrong button! I meant to just do a rollback, not rollback vandalism. sooo sorry about that

anyways, her father does fit the Arab Mexican definition even if she herself doesn't. Nar Matteru (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just curious why you removed my edits on the BSG page, first the cast list, most TV shows have brief summary of the characters, which is why I added one. I removed the production and awards for Season 1 because I moved it to the new page about Season 1 (did not want to duplicate information) and I removed the recurring characters as they do not seem notable enough and I was going to add them on the characters page I was making. And why did you remove the new Genesis part of the production, I was in the process of adding more in. Please respond on my talk page. --Mollsmolyneux (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I prefer not to jump from page to page; hopefully you will still be monitoring this page. The cast list is just a list of names of the notables. If people want more information the character pages are linked at the beginning of the cast section. All the characters listed are notable enough to be listed there on the main page. The season info should remain on the main page as well. Make the specific season pages and add more information, whatever you think is inappropriate for the main page and then link to each one at the start of each set on the main page. I restored the genesis; removing it was a mistake, sorry. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok not a problem ;). I added same character bios as for most TV shows there is at least a nsentence explaining the character with a link to the character page for more information. Ok thanks for the explaination its all I needed. --Mollsmolyneux (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wondering why you say that Starfleet officers aren't soldiers? Every armed forces branch has soldiers don't they? Army, Navy, etc. And Starfleet seems most similar to the Navy in ranks. I would say they are soldiers, do you have evidence to the contrary? Ejfetters (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes; sailors, not soldiers, serve in the navy. Soldiers are to army, as sailors are to navy, as airmen are to air force, and Marines are to Marine Corps. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Summer Glau and Daniel Wisler made their first appearance in The Unit Episode Extreme Rendition, which is season 2 episode 2. They did not appear in Season 1, which is why i changed it.

Ref: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1132359/filmoseries http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1828137/filmoseries —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamdenholm (talk • contribs) 00:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tell me what is wrong with the article so that i can fix it, i am willing to fix things. One thing is clear, my version is better then the older version, my one is sourced, my one doesn't appear in-universe, my one has a lead and my one is longer and has more information that is not JUNK! --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The runtime you are listing is not sourced properly, that is a blanket source that you are using to dissuade. The film never names the planet; the name you are using is from the series. The plot is only applicable to the theatrical version of the film. If you want to move the sections around or remove the unbalanced tag, that isn't the problem. You are adding incorrect info, and destroying the factual integrity of article. The cast section can be reformatted but you are putting in info only applicable to the series and also putting in false information and removing cast members. For example the team are comprised of airmen not soldiers. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The runtime has a source for starters, i've fixed the Abydos problem, my article has less incorrect info then the older version.

What the hell are you doing, you was reverted the first time by Yzx , the second time by Sgeureka and the third time by me, no one agrees with your edit on the page. Instead of making the page worse, make the page better with editing out what you don't like and again STOP. I was forced to stop my editing on the List of Stargate SG-1 characters since no one liked my edits to it, now you are forced to stop your editing on the Stargate film cause no one is SUPPORTING you in it. Okay? --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 12:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are leading me to believe you are a child. Are you acting? Looking to mix things up? Hard to believe you are for real. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No not really, but you are pointing out minor problems you could have fixed with one simple edit, but you are to arrogant to do it. So instead you revert the whole article, i have supporters one my side, you have none so far. --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which I have done. You have gone through the entire plot changing spellings and key words. You should rearrange the sections from the version I was reverting to, add the section info that you felt was "better" and the rest. What you are asking me to do is very time consuming. You know what you changed, you know what I said was a factually incorrect mistake on your part. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=stargate.htm sais the film lasts around 2h and 1min, the first source i used was wrong, i mixed it up with another one. Sorry for that. What is wrong with the plot and the cast section, are you saying, they didn't travel to another planet? I'm not sure what i can do about you, but i know for sure that i can't leave the article alone with you for a second, which you have proven time over time. You have been reverted by three different users / editors, i've got more support than you on this battleground boy. --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I never edited the plot, Sgeureka did and if you want the old plot section back, copy and past it back then.

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=stargate.htm sais the film lasts around 2h and 1min, the first source i used was wrong, i mixed it up with another one. Sorry for that. What is wrong with the plot and the cast section, are you saying, they didn't travel to another planet? I'm not sure what i can do about you, but i know for sure that i can't leave the article alone with you for a second, which you have proven time over time. You have been reverted by three different users / editors, i've got more support than you on this battleground boy. --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am pretty sure I only saw one person trying to "appease" both of us for the sake of averting an edit war. Any other edits made by any other person I was reintroducing to the article. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By now, you could have fixed the problems with the article, but since you are so arrogant it will never happen. I don't want an edit war with you. Much of the text in the article is taken from the OLDER version, the soundtrack section, from the older version, much of the reception comes from the older version, much of the plot comes from the older version much of nearly every dam thing comes from the old F****ing version. --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are acting very immaturely, I am in the process of going through the whole article for your sake. I regret every second that I am doing it, but I also feel it is my duty to do it this way. I will only change the information that I see a problem with. I attempted to just correct little things in the plot, but the plot now seems to read at an elementary school level. There is not enough room in the edit summary to explain my edits. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heya folks! I just came across the issues over at the article, For one, I'd like to suggest that we take the article discussion back over there, rather than spreading it out over two pages. Second, I would like to suggest that we all stop using caps, as that is usually considered a bit rude, and that (while this site isn't censored), we keep the strong emotional wording to a minimum. Also, no matter anyone's opinions, let's keep accusations of arrogance and immaturity out of the discussion. Let's focus on the article. While I do not have a lot of time, I would be happy to offer some assistance in reaching a consensus, if that would help. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, FlieGerFaUstMe262I and TIAYN. I'd like Stargate (film) to be a better article just like both of you do, but I feel somewhat trapped in your crossfire reverting each other, which makes it hard to improve the article to both of your satisfaction. Can we establish that TIAYN's article version contains mistakes that likely came out of enthusiasm for the article subject and maybe lack of wiki experience, but that his version is still better than the old article version content-wise (minus the few mistakes)? I volunteer for helping out ironing the few wrinkles in the article, but I really need you two to collaborate or showing some good will instead of full-on reverting or having unproductive personal discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I stopped the full reverts and took the time to go through most of the garbage. The left everything the way (s)he wanted, but removed the mistakes and non applicable info. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I saw you reverted my changes to Apocalypse Now. Would you mind giving an opinion on Talk:Apocalypse Now/Archive 2#Willard -- Special Forces or not? --Dynaflow babble 05:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I thought you might be interested in participating in this discussion. — OranL (talk) 05:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The edit you restored shouldn't be there. The movie is not the reference because they possibly did it on purpose. It's just an assumption that they made a mistake and that's original research. Also no other movie articles have a section about movie mistakes, I could see if it had some notability like the movie was made fun of by critics because of all the mistakes but all movies make mistakes. --Peppage^tlk 15:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, you are saying that they meant to use the incorrect insignia and put it upside down? Sure, there is the extremely remote possibility that they meant to do it incorrectly, but the point is that it is an inaccuracy. They stated he was a Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant and dressed him in MARPAT. So it isn't some made up service. Sure your logic is not off, but...

There are many articles with movie mistakes in them. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, it's probably a mistake that still doesn't change the fact that it it's WP:OR and WP:TRIV. Using the film as the reference only works for the plot section. I had to find references for the game to movie comparisons. Couldn't the game and the movie be used for references there? To be included it should have a reference and be incorporated into the correct section. I'm wondering how adding this bit of information is helping the article.

Which FAs have a movie mistakes section? --Peppage^tlk 18:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You said movie articles not featured articles and I am not gonna search through them. It helps the article by letting people know the costume department didn't do a great job. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand your point of view and have brought it to WP:Film for discussion. I think we need a third party and there should be a policy on this. Further discussion will be here at the films talk. --Peppage^tlk 18:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Numerous films have been identified as having historical inaccuracies especially if they are dealing with biographical stories or historical events. In these cases, a section is applicable to address these inconsistencies. It is the same as a film "flubs" section. FWiW, see the notorious Pearl Harbor (film). A caution, however, that all statements in regards to identifying inaccuracies should be verifiable from authoritative sources. Bzuk (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Why do you keep reverting my edit on the Warrant Officer page depicting correct CW5 rank in the table?--Darth Marik87 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.55.187.218 (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was one time and it was eleven days ago. What is there now is correct, it just has the previous insignia as well. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do you not think the reason Private Ryan was saved should be in the lead section?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It doesn't read well. There is a plot section for a reason. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I'm sorry. I just think that's the most important reason for the plot in the first place. Rescuing an ordinary soldier when all of this other stuff is going on wouldn't make sense, but preventing his mother from losing her last son is the entire basis for what they did. I'll trust your judgment, though.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 12:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you can figure out a way to include it with out it ruining the flow of the lead then I would not object. The way you wrote it breaks the flow of the lead. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks.

Before I did that edit, I was reading a great deal of detail that a French online friend wrote about D-day. Then someone on the site where it was written realized he "plagiarized" Wikipedia (though this guy is a troublemaker and has admitted vandalizing Wikipedia. He also shares great achievements by other vandals he found reading histories). He defended what he did saying D-day was very important to his country. To the person who criticized his efforts we on the other site say "So what?" It just shows how valuable Wikipedia is.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 12:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't see that you did make a change. I thought if no one said the words, the change wouldn't get made. I don't know why I didn't just look.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The information about the identity of Lee Marvin's character name is available on the main commentry track of the DVD(The Reconstruction) and more importantly in Samuel Fuller's novel. In the DVD commentry Richard Schnickel clearly says "we never get to know the name of the sergeant, he's only ever refered to as the THE Sergeant", i think if anyone knew this it would be Mr. Schnickel. Also if you read Fuller's novel it is clearly described in the text that the Sergeant is using radio double talk by refering to the Germans pretending to be dead as "playing possum". This is something that may be combat veterans would get, i'm sure that this type of code is spoken in other film's.

On the commentary track I heard they said that it is, in fact, his name. I am not going by that scene. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May be you should listen to it again, this time more carefully. And also look up the meaning of playing possum before deleting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Mercenary 73 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleting what? --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're not interested in it specifically, are you? See the Saving Private Ryan topic above for why I gave the impression I might have been.

When I saw the DTV transition date referred to as D-Day, I thought about making sure that was on the D-Day disambiguation page. Amazingly, there wasn't one.

If it's of particular interest to you, would you please look at all my recent work?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The characters that were ex Maquis in Voyager were given field commissions rather than a "provisional" rank, which would make more sense as although Starfleet is not a military organisation it does use traditional military values - officers can grant field commissions on vessels operating away from base. Janeway did this with three main officers and so did Picard with Wesley Crusher.

Regards

msa1701 (talk) 07:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These are separate cases. They are "provisional" as in they are temporary out of necessity. They were provisional rank appointments. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 09:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where is your evidence for using the title of "Provisional rank"?

msa1701 (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the dialogue of the episode, Torres and Chakotay were both given a provisional rank. They wore provisional insignia while field commissioned officers, like Parris and Crusher, wore regular insignia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayyung (talk • contribs) 14:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What can I say other then D'Oh! LOL. I undid the wrong edit--Lepeu1999 (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article was prodded as it isn't based on reliable sources. I deprodded. Unless it can be sourced better, the prodder will probably send it to Article for Deletion, so if you can then some rewriting based on reliable sources wouldn't go amiss. Fences&Windows 19:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The current common name for the M1 Rifle is M1 Garand (hence the article title) or even just Garand, from everyone I know anyway. It doesn't sound "silly" to use Garand in the name in another article, and what's more important it is more less confusing and ambiguous to say "M1 Garand" than "M1 Rifle". Some guy (talk) 06:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More less? --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...what? There's no reason not to mention the name "Garand". Your edit comments are not particularly helpful or sensical. Could you please explain in more detail why you think the current common name of the rifle shouldn't be in the article? Again, the title of the M1 Garand article is M1 Garand, not M1 Rifle. If you grab a random person with limited firearms knowledge they are more likely to recognize "M1 Garand" than "M1 Rifle". It's better to reduce ambiguity by using a more specific name. Some guy (talk) 07:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One section of the article is in question, not the entire article. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What does that have to do with what I said? What is your reason for taking the word Garand out of the M1 Carbine article? What is wrong with referring to the M1 Rifle as the M1 Garand in the M1 Carbine article? Some guy (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have not taken the word "Garand" out of the article; it is still in there. Anyone who knows what the "Garand" is will know what the M1 rifle is. Calling it "the Garand" is a nickname that came about after the time period being referred to in the section of the article in question and is superficially less encyclopedic. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It says "Garand's rifle" but not the "M1 Garand", which is what more people will know it by (and the way in which it is used is not obvious). Not everyone who knows what the Garand is will know what the "M1 rifle" is. In modern usage, Garand is the common name, which again is why the M1 Garand article is titled M1 Garand. Books, movies, games, etc. all use the name "Garand" and it's more memorable. Casually interested parties who are not firearms or history buffs will probably have an easier time with the term M1 Garand because it's a name and not just a letter-number combination. Additionally, they didn't refer to World War I as World War I when it occured, but that's how it's referred to now, in articles and by most people. It's more important to make the article clearly understandable and accessible to a wider audience than try to use era-terminology by section... Some guy (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably have an easier time? I seem to disagree; if I thought that I was making the section "unreadable", I would not have made the changes. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't say it made the section unreadable. I said adding "Garand" makes the section easier to understand. You need to think of this in terms of making it understandable to the widest audience. Google "M1 Garand": 532,000 results. Google "M1 rifle": 30,700 results. That's over 17x as many results for M1 Garand. That's what's important. Again, the focus of the encyclopedia is on the average reader, the general audience, and obviously a lot more people are familiar with the "M1 Garand" than the "M1 rifle". EDIT: Page view statistics: "M1 Garand" article 37,991 times in June [4]. "M1 rifle" redirect 586 times in June. [5]. Do you see that only a very small fraction of people are looking for or referring to the Garand as the "M1 rifle"? Especially considering the M1 Garand article is titled M1 Garand , it is appropriate to use that term at least once in the M1 carbine article for clarity. Some guy (talk) 07:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not disputing the term used most often, I am disputing its usage in the section of the article. Anyone who is not sure what the "M1 rifle" is can easily click on the blueness and educate themselves. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And how is this different that referring to World War I as World War 1 in an article about something from that time period? It's absurd to not allow a link to an article using the article's proper title. Some guy (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't refer to that war in either way and I don't really feel the connection to this issue. It is not so absurd; it is done all the time. I am definitely not the one establishing the precedent. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like more outside input so I started a discussion here if you'd like to participate: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Calling the M1 Garand the M1 Garand. Some guy (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never mind, I see that you changed the text. I like the way you phrased it now, I think it's a good compromise. Some guy (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then by all means, change it to "Gurrand (gun) yo" Just ran across this. Made my day, it did. Thanks. Anmccaff (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the only thing stupid is arogant people who delete legit infromation.

Is not relevant to the story of Lakeview Terrace. You have been reverted once, twice and now three times, the consensus, by three different editors, is that police officer is enough. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree; I believe the reasons for reversions are ignorance of the facts. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know you disagree, but as you are against three different editors I suggest you go to the talk page before reverting it again. If you think you are right then make your case. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it's true. I hereby award you today's modest editor barnstar (note the mandatory lowercase) for your recent edit of PTSD, in which you moved a misplaced period from the right side of a "ref" tag set to the correct left side. I would be impressed by this, but...I don't want to overreact. I'll limit myself to simple gratitude. We surely could use more eagle-eyed editors. Thanks! Tom Cloyd (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My one zillionth period move; happens all the time. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion at Template:US officer ranks's talk page is about an edit you made. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have a question about your recent edit at Talk:Leo Strauss#"what is now germany?" ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 20:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, actually I want it set as minor by default; having to check minor all the time will be atrocious! Nicht Nein! (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, FlieGerFaUstMe262. I removed the recent edits you made to this article as WP:Original research. This has been a problem with this article in the past: at one point every character had a rank attributed to them,[6] some had last names that never were mentioned in the film, and a character named "Monkey" somehow appeared in the film.[7] This was all original research. The official cast list is far more encyclopedic than one where original research is added. For instance, in this edit: how do you know that Rhah's last name is spelled "Remucci" and not "Ramucci"? Or that Crawford was certainly a Specialist 4 rank? Unless you can verify where you saw that, it's a safe bet to say that it's original research. I hope you understand, and Cheers :> Doc talk 23:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can get good looks of rank insignia during the movie. For example: Crawford during the the credits, Warren when he is counseling his squad on Barnes. For Rhah, you can check the subtitles. You are right on the spelling it is likely with an a and not an e, until I check I won't reintroduce it. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm afraid we're having a misunderstanding here. Consensus is, and has been for the last year and a half, to keep the unaltered official cast list. Unless consensus has changed (which is why I directed you to the article's talk page) the list will remain as the official cast list. If you want to add original research to the plot section: that's what these film articles are all about. But the cast list will remain unaltered. Or we'll have no cast list whatsoever: they are certainly not required and are often frowned upon after just a few listed cast members. If you insist on adding original research to the list (I have removed it again) without gaining consensus for those edits, they will be removed. Thank you. Doc talk 02:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. - Please see this[8] section on the talk page for comment. Cheers :> Doc talk 03:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now it seems you are changing your story, you claimed I needed to verify, now you are saying it doesn't matter even if I verify. So, then, we should remove the cast list all together. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Verify meaning with reliable sources. Printed, published. Not that one can see that he has the insignia on his sleeve. Listen, all you need to do is leave the official cast list alone: that can be verified by outside sources. Put "Staff Sergeant Barnes" in the plot body if you want. And please go to the discussion on the talk page - hopefully others will chime in. Doc talk 03:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Event Horizon (film). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can't pick and choose... be consistent, a whole part of the article is what could be considered original research. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then you're welcome to handle it accordingly. Doniago (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you appear to be an expert on this so can you answer why Kyle Reese is younger than John Connor in Terminator Salvation? Especially since Kyle Reese is his dad? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 21:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this a joke? Or? --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope, saw your name on the talk page if i'm not mistaken. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 18:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you not seen the other "the Terminator" movies? I don't want to spoil anything for you... --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've seen them but i'm dyslexic and so looking a lemon i was asked this question saturday and now i can't find out why...There was no time travel for anyone other than terminators from what i've seen. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, you really need to take a second, or third, or forth, look at those movies again. Kyle Reese was sent back in time to stop the Terminator in the first film. This gave him the opportunity to be John Connor's father. John Connor is older than Kyle Reese in Salvation, because John Connor was born before him. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, i see now. To be honest i only just clocked it when reading this why he has to save Kyle Reese in Salvation, because he would himself not exist otherwise. Thanks for that =] I'm sure i can find a fitting reward for spelling that out for me ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For your simple Terminator explanation. Feel free to terminate this pie too, preferrably after a meal! ツ Jenova20 (email) 08:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have asked for outside opinions in Crown of Castile, the question is Did the the Crown of Castile end in 1812 or in 1715? I am notifying you because you have made non-trivial edits to the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made a topic ban proposal, but it's getting very little input from the community. Apparently, people are not commenting because they are not familiar with the topic. Can you leave a comment there? --Enric Naval (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd rather not get involved in a ban of anything. I think he is constructive because he forces the rest to always be at their best. Convince him instead! --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * Staff Sergeant [[Charles E. Grant]] (1922–1984))

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You were so right robot, thanks. --<Nicht Nein! (talk)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, FlieGerFaUstMe262. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, FlieGerFaUstMe262. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, FlieGerFaUstMe262. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I can make out, you never consider whether your edits are actually minor, and as such abuse the facility constantly. Please stop doing so. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wait what? Nicht Nein! (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 11:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]