Talk:Robert L. Caslen
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Robert L. Caslen article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Update Needed
editLTG Caslen has changed positions. Just wanted to tag the page for update and will return to edit. P-Twist (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Date on bottom picture is incorrect
editIn the picture of him shaking the Iraqi military person's hand, it says "2006," which is incorrect. He is wearing the taro leaf of the 25th Infantry Division on his left shoulder which indicates he was assigned to the unit. As a two-star he would have been the commanding general. He was not the CG in 2006 -- I know because I deployed with the 25ID headquarters from Sept. 2006-Oct. 2007 during it's 15-month deployment. Caslen was the CG for 25ID's following deployment which I also served on. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.7.204.11 (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Awards and decorations section
editI wanted to ask why this was deleted from the article with no discussion. It has been there since at least late 2014. I understand the referencing could be improved, but it is available in his official biography. His official photo also gives clues to his awards and decorations. I do not believe that this section runs counter to WP:ICON if it is properly formatted and referenced. The average Joe doesn't know what all that bright colored ribbon on his chest represents. We editors who are able to translate that to a broader audience should do so. As the article had the section for at least 3 years serving as consensus, I will restore the section and improve referencing if there is no additional discussion. EricSerge (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- MOS:ICON seems clear. I don't see how you could think having pictures of all those awards is appropriate. I don't care what the average Joe knows and it's not my business to care. Just because you thought those images had utility does not excuse their presence. That the article was like that for three years makes no difference, just as an article being unreferenced or incoherent for years doesn't mean we should ignore those failings. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- You are cherry picking things that you like and don't like. In the second section of MOS:ICON it specifically talks about avoiding flags in infoboxes. You added to the infobox in your recent edits and they don't really sort out or clarify anything. I am sorry but that undermines my confidence in your interpretation. EricSerge (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
"You added to the infobox in your recent edits"
Please provide diffs. I think you're confused. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)- Forgive my mangled typing, I think I may have been on my iPhone at the time. [1] here you restored the placement of the US Army flag in the infobox by reverting a prior edit. There is no confusion about what you did, I suppose that it is just intent that could be misinterpreted. It seems it was just a tenured editor reflexively reverting an IP editor. EricSerge (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Not quite. I restored the use of {{Army}} instead of including the image directly. It was already there and I just reverted a change to how it was displayed. It may be a fuzzy line with which images are allowed and which aren't. I try hard not to reflexively revert IPs. I'm not opposed to removing that image, too. Bottom line is, you don't have consensus to include a ribbon rack. I'm pretty sure starting an RfC will result in the same conclusion. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- Forgive my mangled typing, I think I may have been on my iPhone at the time. [1] here you restored the placement of the US Army flag in the infobox by reverting a prior edit. There is no confusion about what you did, I suppose that it is just intent that could be misinterpreted. It seems it was just a tenured editor reflexively reverting an IP editor. EricSerge (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- You are cherry picking things that you like and don't like. In the second section of MOS:ICON it specifically talks about avoiding flags in infoboxes. You added to the infobox in your recent edits and they don't really sort out or clarify anything. I am sorry but that undermines my confidence in your interpretation. EricSerge (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- I tend to say EricSerge is right as per WP:ICON and MOS:ICON. So, before deleting whole article sections, what about the RfC you talked about? claudevsq (talk) 11:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Picture
editHello, the picture should be changed, because Mr. Caslen now has a civilian function as President-Elect of the University of South Carolina. I do not know how to upload such a picture, but the University has one online, see link. I think it would be fair use to add it to wikipedia. Thank you if you can help. https://www.sc.edu/imgs/presidential_search/post_190424_caslen_004.jpg
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- That's OK. The image is no longer needed as another picture has been approved. Thank you. --71.105.97.64 (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)