User talk:FlieGerFaUstMe262

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Thanks

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)

[edit] Hector Williams

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)

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

[edit] Braveheart edits

Yes, I can live with that. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 11:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 7 + 1

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)

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

[edit] AfD nomination of Iga A.

An editor has nominated Iga A., an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iga A. and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Just to let you know, I removed the last couple edits you made on Iga A.. When you're editing the biography of someone who's still alive, it's absolutely and positively required to make sure the material you add has been backed up with citations from a trustworthy and reliable source. We have a page, commonly called WP:BLP ("Biographies of Living Persons") that should really help with making sure we stick to that which is verifiable. Thanks in advance, I just know you'll get this article to Featured Article status soon! :D ~Kylu (u|t) 21:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, please... The individual who complained in the first place that the information on the page was not correct and had "concrete proof", was not trustworthy or reliable. They never backed anything up with citations either. I was sent this "concrete proof" and it was not concrete at all. The references on the page were put there by me and the first article has her listed as Eve. She is known as Eve and Eva as well, I don't know why you removed the information I added. Have you actually researched it and found that information to be false? It is redundant to list "USA Playboy" as it is USA by default. Also the person that seems to want the page littered in "Iga" seems to really want to enforce some kind of fantasy, the reference that they keep retitling to have "Iga" in it is a reference that actually lists her as Eve. So in a way that is a citation for the sentence that you removed that stated she is known as Eve. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It's cut and dry: If a section of a biography on a living person is disputed, and there's no reliable source cited, you don't hem and haw and stick up a {{fact}} tag and say it requires a source. You delete the disputed material. Seriously.
“ I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons ”

-Jimmy Wales[1]

If you add unverified material to a biography, and someone complains, it gets taken down. If you keep adding it, it keeps getting taken down. Since removing WP:BLP-violating material is exempt from WP:3RR, then if you add it three times, and the other person removes it three times, you get blocked and they don't.
If you don't want to deal with that mess, cite your sources, put in only information that's in the source you cite, make sure they're reliable, and then (if there's a serious problem) you may well wish to put in a html comment on the page stating your reasoning for the cite. If the admittedly strict rules for BLP bother you, don't edit biographies that require you to adhere to that policy. Is it even worth all the drama over? ~Kylu (u|t) 02:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
No it is not, that is why I stopped editing it. My point is, that the information up there now IS indeed what you are saying needs to be removed. The proof they had was unverifiable, so as you preach verifiable you are blocking the verifiable. It is easily verified that she is known erroneously as Eve and Eva on many sites. I added it in a way that did not "upset" the original antagonist, but sure I'm done with it now. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

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)

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

[edit] SPR - Sniper issue

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)

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)