|
User talk:MrDolomite/Archive 3
VA TemplateHello, Sorry if this is late but I have replyed to your message at Template_talk:USSecVA. Thanks again for the kudos! - Thanks, Hoshie 21:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Eisenhower citationI noticed that the information about Eisenhower's MOH needed a citation. One respected source for that citation could be D' Este's biography, Eisenhower: A Soldier's Life. p.372-373. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.197.241.135 (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC) My General of the Army (United States) EditsMy apologies for not providing my explanation for the edits. I have made my edits again with explanation, which I will repeat here for your consideration. If you disagree, fine. Revert them again. Your contributions to the article are appreciated. I changed this: "In the 1990s, the U.S. Department of Defense gave indication that the office of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would possibly one day be a position worthy of five-star rank.[citation needed] This would be problematic in that with the appointment of United States Marine Corps Generals as Chairman, there is no current five-star USMC rank. " To this: "In the 1990s, the U.S. Department of Defense gave indication that the office of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would possibly one day be a position worthy of five-star rank.[citation needed]" Removing the un-sourced statement that using 5 stars for C-JCS would be problematic. My reason: How would it be problematic? They would just create the USMC 5 star rank. There was no 5 star rank for the Army or Navy until they were needed and created. Unjustified assertion. I removed the sentence from the end of that same paragraph. The preceding sentence discusses Omar Bradley's promotion to 5 star rank, and clearly states that it was given as recognition of his WWII and post-war service, and not because of his selection as C-JCS. The next sentence, which I removed, says, "In particular Bradley was not, because he was serving as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, to have, in his person, the most senior rank in the uniformed services of the United States." What does that mean? Does it add anything to the article that wasn't already said in the previous sentence? Does the sentence mean to say that when Bradley was of 5 star rank that he was NOT the most senior active officer? Who would have been senior? What is the source of this assertion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.55.251 (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Articles for deletion nomination of William F. Halsey, Sr. I have nominated William F. Halsey, Sr., an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William F. Halsey, Sr.. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC) After losing the field with the speedy delete of his article, people are now going after his picture which was very hard to find. There are only two in existence, both screenshots from Men of Honor. I stated this on his picture page but got a very short one line answer. Your chiming in would be much appreciated since there simply are no other pictures of him available. -OberRanks (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry for spamming you, but in light of the impending shift of the Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States, I'd like to get this article up to FA status within the next few weeks, and ready for the front page by the time the Court starts its fall term. Any help or advice you can provide would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Agree with table on List of Presidential Medal of Freedom recipientsMrDolomite, agree with your table suggestion on the List of Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients article. Comments in the discussion. - Thaimoss (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC) concerning dick clark edit i madehello. first off, allow me to state that im not tryin to tell you that you were wrong, or argue with you at all. im just hopin to understand better, so as to not cause anyone to go through the trouble of worrying about correcting me anymore. i did not intend to leave what would be considered vandalism, i hope from the reading of my edit to dick clarks page, it is at least noticable that i was attempting to word it in a way that would not be considered defamatory? .... well i dont really know what defamatory is, but i was trying to word it in a way that wouldnt be considered as an attack or insult to him.... simply a theory (albeit one that most would consider implausible, granted) as to why dick clark had remained so youthful over all these years...... cuz i was even going to include a joke about about ending his "vampiric reign of terror" during a new years ball dropping ceremony, by decapitatin him right as the ball got to the bottom of the pole, and figured 'no... that wouldtn be taken well at all probably". and i was gonna also crack some wise about his middle name 'wagstaff' and how only a vampire could have such a moniker. but at a loss to humor, i went ahead and removed those.... i state this, not to point out why i think i was right, but to hopefully impress upon you that i earnestly did not mean to be a 'vandal', as it seems i was taken. so basically... i was hopin you would have time to give, and wouldnt mind givin me a little more detail/explanation as to what exactly was bad about my submission. i would honestly hope there is some way to leave that edit in a way that would be acceptable, if possible. thank you, i appreciate your patience and understanding. have a nice day. if by some chance i messed up on the guidelines for this talk page interaction then i aplogize. thank you for your understanding and patience. begonder -Begonder (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Service awards proposal
Feedback About My Changes to Mother Teresa WikiThanks for the feedback about my changes to Mother Teresa's wiki. I changed her religion again and cited a good source (CBS) and it still got reverted. Please help me understand why. Thanks so much for your time. Bluetd (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Ice hockey 2002 OlympicsI was deleting something that was irrelevant to the page, and not something that should be in an encyclopedia. Explain how what Bob Cole said when the Rangers won the Cup in 1994 is remotely relevant to the 2002 Winter Olympics. It's not. Please do not threaten me when you are the one that is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.181.22 (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Template:Nomainpageahh, ok as you would of seen, the pages are/were link in a loop, with no actual main article. the template was an attempt at pointing that out (as it was the first time i had made one). Sghfdhdfghdfgfd (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC) General of the ArmiesGeneral of the Armies is under fire once again. The same old stuff, i.e. Washington was a seven star general superior to Pershing. This combined with removing references to Congress and stating the President is in charge of giving out this rank as well some pretty heavy POV edits. I've done two reverts so far, you may wish to take a look. -OberRanks (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC) The user returned and is making the same edits that SJ did last year. Basic stating that Washington was a seven star general. He isn't listening to reason and has removed a lot of the original references. Your help would be greatly appreciated. -OberRanks (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC) United States Secretary of WarRe: United States Secretary of War diff - Timothy Pickering was a Pennsylvania resident from the mid 1780s to 1802. This covers his time in the Washington and Adams administrations. Thank you for caring, but Presidential appointments are listed by the state of residence, not the person's state of birth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gevan (talk • contribs) 05:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Cross pattéeRegarding Cross pattée - Only on Wikipedia could a piece of entirely relevant and correct information be removed on the whim of someone with too much time on their hands. Well done, you have successfully managed to stifle me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.23.124 (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC) well you've managed it (to stifle) thanks very much, seems by many of your other messages i've read, that you've tread on quite a few feet in your ruthless pursuit of supremecy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.23.124 (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC) WARNING!RE: EDD BYRNESS....THIS IFORMATION HAS BEEN HERE FOR YEARS, IT HAS BEEN VERIFIED! DO NOT DELETE IT JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE IT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.91.148.188 (talk • contribs) regarding Edd Byrnes
Category:Tropical cyclone articlesHi. I've reverted your edit to Category:Tropical cyclone articles, since the __HIDDENCAT__ tag is intentional; the category is used for maintenance purposes only. Cheers, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Courtesy noteYou are receiving this message because an RFC has been initiated at Talk:John J. Pershing#RFC about a matter on which you may have commented in the past. Thank you, –xenotalk 15:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Sergei Fedorov articleI entered a [citation needed] for the second endnote "Wings of Legend: Sergei Fedorov". DetroitRedWings.com. http://www.detroitredwings.com/history/wol/wol-sergeifedorov.jsp. Retrieved 2007-01-26." No such article exists in the link. If you want to submit another source for that information (ie. a link that works), please do so. But do not let that it appear as if the link provided at the moment would be a proper citation for the fact you provide. 128.214.164.62 (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC) npyrhone
|
