User talk:MrDolomite/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:MrDolomite. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Re:Talk:Henry Paulson

Thanks for the head's up, that was me who deleted the comments, I must not have been signed in when I did that. Since Mr. Paulson has made a public appearance, my comments were irrelevant, which is why I deleted them. Sorry for the confusion. Chaos Motor (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Today's RFD Nomintions

You nominated three pages for deletion at WP:RFD today. Unfortunately, each of these pages is a disambiguation page and not a redirect. WP:RFD is only for redirects. Disabmig pages are handled via WP:AFD. You may wish to renominate via the AFD process. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 13:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank You!

		The TomStar81 Spelling Award
		Be it known to all members of Wikipedia that MrDolomite has corrected my god-awful spelling on the page Iowa class battleship, and in doing so has made an important and very significant contribution to the Wikipedia community, thereby earning this TomStar81 Spelling Award and my deepest thanks. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 21:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Distinguishing between power and authority

Hi there. I've never before contributed to wikipedia except to add my article on power and authority, which now seems to have been marked for deletion. All i'd like to know is why. I'd be most grateful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blakemore e71 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Re : User:Mailer diablo/P

Thanks for the barnstar, I appreciate that! =) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 13:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Dodge Ram incorrect vandalism warnings

MrDolomite, while I appreciate your zeal for protecting Wikipedia from vandalism, you had better check your facts before issuing anti-vandalism warnings against other users. As an anonymous contributor, I removed vandalism from the Dodge Ram page on 28 March 2007. Surely, a brief examination of this edit would have revealed that it was an entirely legitimate correction. For some reason, however, you posted the standard level-2 vandalism warning on my user talk page! Also targeted in the warning was IP address 65.10.105.158, whose only edit at that time was also a correction of vandalism. Could it be that you issued these warnings to everyone who made edits on that page around that time, without actually verifying that the edits were indeed malicious? As an apparently active contributor to Wikipedia, you owe the rest of the community a higher degree of caution and responsibility than this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.98.214.135 (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

See my reply and apology on his talk page here — MrDolomite • Talk 23:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:Sort

Hi MrDolomite, there is a centralized discussion going on for all issues surrounding sortkeys for wikitables. Maybe you would like to give some input here: Template talk:Sort. --Van helsing 14:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing Taft

Wasn't me, Fucko. Stop sending me messages. 63.228.54.147 01:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

See my reply here on User talk:63.228.54.147 — MrDolomite • Talk 11:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:General of the Armies

I just took a look at wikisource vs. wikicommons and it seems like a tough call as to where these images belong. One thing that's against commons is [1] where it says "By Type / Images / * Animations · Diagrams · Drawings · Maps (Atlas) · Paintings · Photos · Symbols." A scanned document does not seem to fit in that list. The Wikipedia page for Wikisource says "collects and stores in digital format previously published texts" though I don't know if a scanned image qualifies as "digital format." I uploaded the scans to provide background source material for s:Order 31-3 and in case there's ever a question about what the actual orders say. I need to run now but will look into this further as it's unclear to me at the moment why there are two separate sites (wikisource vs. wikicommons). Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 18:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Yeah, I got an edit conflict when I tried to upload the file, so I thought I would return the favor. Tbjablin 01:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanx

Major league thanx for the ribbon bar at Robin Olds. Using the tool you linked, I was able to recreate the same for Gabby Gabreski but have not the foggiest idea how to download it or even if I legally can. It's a cool tool and you are commended for the addition.--Buckboard 01:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:BelievePatch.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:BelievePatch.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Kevin C. Kiley

Hey Mr. D.--

Long User page. I'll have to come back to it one day and finish it. Anyway, I noted that you're the one who added the Current Event tag to the Kevin Kiley article (as well you should have, no doubt). However, he's left the Army and while the scandal is still fresh in military minds, it isn't as much in the public's mind anymore. And what is still fresh doesn't include Kiley. It just seems silly to have a Current Event tag on someone who hardly anybody remembers now. Would you agree that it's safe to take down the tag now, or how much longer does it need to stay up and to still be considered current? --ScreaminEagle 22:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Robert F. Willard.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Robert F. Willard.jpg, by GrummelJS (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Robert F. Willard.jpg fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

hires Image available commons:Image:Robert F. Willard.jpg

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Robert F. Willard.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 10:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Kirill 01:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

General of the Armies 2

Don't revert my edit again. General of the Army is not the only 5 star rank in the US army, as your edit implied. And I don't think General of the Army is a 5 star rank in all countries, as your edit implied. - Shaheenjim 15:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The rank General of the Armies of the United States is also a five star rank. See the Six Star Rank? section of the General of the Armies article for information about that. I edited the page again to reflect that.

If you want people to assume good faith, then don't revert their edits without discussing it on the talk page first, unless you're sure you're right or they're clearly vandalism. - Shaheenjim 23:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

My interpretation is that the rank General of the Armies of the United States was a four star rank before they created the five star General of the Army rank in 1944. At that point, General of the Armies was raised from four stars to five, in order to keep it the highest possible rank in the US. Pershing kept wearing the four star insignia, but they said he was superior to General of the Army, so you can just assume it's a five star rank anyway. However, as the article says, it was not seen to be a six star rank. - Shaheenjim 02:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What you've stumbled upon

The user you have encountered on the GENOFARMES article has had some significant difficulties working with others, the primary fault being a misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Specifically, the user fells that all changes to the article must be first discussed on the talk page, and personally approved by said user, before allowing them to remain in the article. If this is not done, the user will blanket revert all changes not his own. An added twist is that the user seems to have a deep respect for one single user and talks with him…and only him…about the validity of the article. All others are meet with suspicion and there have been a few violations of WP:CIV as well (“You’re edits make this article worse”). To top off the situation, we are dealing with someone who is not a United States citizen, I think, and doesn’t have an understanding of who George Washington really is or the importance he has in the military history of the United States. For instance, no military veteran alive or dead would say that John Pershing is an equal to George Washington, but that’s how the article is presently written. So, I tell you this not to bash to the other user but to give you an idea of what you’ve stumbled upon and ask that all of us try to be patient. I think this will eventually lead to a block on the user in question, for I am sure by the tone of the talk page that the user will eventually cross the line and either threaten someone or break 3RR. Until then, however, I guess it is best to work with him…or at least try. -OberRanks 15:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply to my concerns. A recent talk page entry by our friend at General of the Armies sounds like he plans to do some serious damage, talking about merging the article with General of the Army to reflect the existence of General of Armies in the Civil War which simply isn't true. Please keep an eye on this article. Thank you. -OberRanks 21:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Tourism in metropolitan Detroit

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourism in metropolitan Detroit, you may want to have some input. Thanks Thomas Paine1776 21:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ask for help

Would you mind add some references of the Inter-service decorations of the United States military?

Thank you.--东北虎(Manchurian Tiger) 04:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Fleet admiral image

I used an automated summary, so I wasn't able to change it. Anyways, the image was a copyright violation from http://www.uniforminsignia.net/index.php?p=show&id=65&sid=1288 and the source was lied about. I have uploaded a replacement image at Image:Fleet admiral shoulder rank.jpg. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of British and United States military ranks compared

An article that you have been involved in editing, British and United States military ranks compared, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British and United States military ranks compared. Thank you. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad situation

I cant recall how involved you were with this, but a bad situation is developing on General (United States). Please see Talk:General_(United_States)#Investigation_into_non-consensus_merger. Thank you very much. -OberRanks 03:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This friend of ours is really getting out of control and has crossed the line with WP:OWN. He is now reverting any edit not his/her own on General of the Armies. Something needs to be done, but I'm not sure what. -OberRanks 15:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Good edits, thank you. Our pal reverted all of your changes. I restored it and one more and its breaking of WP:3RR. Maybe a block on SJ will stop the edit war. I hope. -OberRanks 17:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

As Please note that my personal focus, and talk, will be confined to the the General of the Armies page. I know the war continues on other fronts but I'm swamped in projects. Marc Kupper (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Princes of Wales

Just to let you know, the header for the PW template is red because the title originates in England – whereas Duke of Edinburgh is British, hence the same purple as the British Monarchs box, because that purple is a blend of red, for England, and blue, for Scotland D B D 01:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)