|
——————————————— Archive, January 2012 ———————————————
 NATO Army warrant officer templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Officer781 (talk) 08:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
As I now am convinced the warrant officer templates are worthy to keep, I think we need to put all the different countries' warrant officers all into the same category. Other than the countries which already have warrant officer templates, to aid in classifying warrant officers, these are the warrant officer ranks of the different countries:
- Adjudant ranks of Belgium, France (in which rank system also includes Major) and The Netherlands
- Офицерски кандидат ranks of Bulgaria
- Warrant Officer ranks of Canada and United Kingdom (this is quite obvious ;))
- zászlós ranks of Hungary
- puskarininkis ranks of Lithuania
- praporščak ranks of Slovenia
I apologize for the misconduct and look forward to the template revamp. Cheers,--Officer781 (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
- It is not really what I'd call "misconduct". :) It is just that in my experience friction leads to everyone being unhappy. I too apologize if I have been unnecessarily harsh. You have a vast amount of knowledge on ranks while I have the experience with templates. We can make this work and create something amazing. :)
- To be honest, I am unsure how we can compare ranks of countries in the absence of a STANAG or some other resource to guide us. We can however explain what each rank range means in terms of how they rank among that countries other ranks. Eventually the STANAG would catch up.
- -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I see you are rather involved with the template series. I am the original creator of these template and article series from about half a decade ago. I am pleased to see that there are people aside from me that give great care to these templates and articles.
The original intention of the templates were to compare NATO ranks only but the use of the templates have increased. Italian Army ranks for example features the template outside of the templates original intention. Also the STANAG itself has been updated at least once since. Since the use of the template has increased I am thinking of renaming all "Ranks and Insignia of NATO" templates to "Ranks and Insignia" dropping the "of NATO" to expand its use to non-NATO countries and beyond. I also intend to generalize the template so that it is more robust and less complicated to use.
I am thinking of a vertical style rather than horizontal.so that it is top towards bottom rather than sideways.
Would you have objections to any of this?
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 01:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I should agree with keeping the templates but do not agree with making single countries warrant officer page (ok, I do not agree with the English name "warrant officer" e.g. --> Warrant officer (Italy) simply because they are called Marshals (marescialli) and often confused and mistranslated as "warrant officers" probably due the comparisons among the ranks of the Italian and the British Armed Forces. By the way, as you probably know, Marshals in France and Germany are the highest ranks for generals, the NATO system is correct but the U.S. warrant officer are member of a special category who came from the NCOs. In Italy until 10 years ago, before the reformation was also possible to join the "officer" status for NCOs (ok, is still possible in a different way) but American warrant officer are the solely WO wich have a special status among the NATO countries cause they are not exactly officer (cause they don't receive a commission), and not longer NCOs. So we have always to remember that systems among countries are different and sometimes, someone is misunderstanding the fact that "comparison" is a thing, "translation" is another thing, just to be clear, let me remember the English translation of some naval ranks during the "age of sail" e.g. "ship-of-the-line captain" for the French "capitaine de vaisseau", or "ensign" for the Hungarian "zászló" (that as you know, for English speaking people is an officer, to the Hungarians they are member of zászlós category). --Nicola Romani (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
- If you have a different name, that is by all means fine by me. I do not really mind it being labeled either way. :)
- Warrant officers are a special rank that ranks above NCOs and below officers (and have some officer privileges) which is why they are special. Indeed system of countries differ significantly but I think a page could compare these ranks to show how they are different from each other. Each countries rank could indeed have a separate article explaining the history of the rank and what it does (like how US has a seperate article). I just put the templates in the main article page as a place holder to start the sections as writing those takes time.
- US Warrant Officers do not really have a special status in NATO as far as I can tell. The rank does not seem to have a NATO equivalence however. I could not find any info on WOs in the STANAG after glancing over it. Is this information written on a specific page? :)
- -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- You are right, US Warrant officer do not have a NATO equivalence, the official NATO-STANAG 2116 I've posted above is complete, no more pages, thats all NATO write about. I think we should work on a sandbox ;-) what do you think? --Nicola Romani (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Sure. I will have more time on wiki-editing in February though. :) -- A Certain White Cat chi? 09:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
This RfC discussing the above issue may be of interest to you. Dpmuk (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Are you sure you wanted to link to this? -- A Certain White Cat chi? 17:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- What I really wanted was to make the link to Willeborg von Wertheim in the article Gottfried von Hohenlohe into a red link as there is no Wikipedia article on Willeborg von Wertheim. As it was before it redirected to Wertheim and that is a disambiguation page. What I really wanted to do is get rid of the redirect at Willeborg von Wertheim. I thought what I tried might work. If you know how to get rid of a redirect or have another suggestion, I'd love to know. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
- The redirect can be deleted or a stub article can be created. I do not know anything about the topic though. Redirecting the page to itself is just confusing to the reader though. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 12:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I have AFDed WP:Dick at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. This is a courtesy as you are the earliest known contributer that I can ascertain. Tom Pippens (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Thank you for notifying me. I posted a comment on the discussion page. As I mentioned on my post... While I do not oppose or support the deletion of the redirect in question, I do feel the chosen median is the wrong one. MFD would be more suitable. Also with the availability of m:Dick I ponder if the deletion of the redirect would have any impact beyond creating scores of redlinks in archives. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Marmara blackout of 2012, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kocaeli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
I am trying very hard to get this incident on the main page as ITN element. It is very hard to do this when people keep removing the section I am linking to. :( Sorry I am quite frustrated by the constant removals at these articles as same content was quickly removed from Taliban article as well.
It is very bad practice to have list of attacks. I honestly do not care how many people get killed in attacks. I care more about the details. Each attack should be a detailed section or an entirely separate article.
Do we need 6 sources? Yes because each has different detail. I was hoping people who are more knowledgeable on the topic would expand using them.
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 22:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- if we need 6 article then cite the relevant detail from eaach article to the relevant portion. tagging them all at the end maked it look redundant. Further, we cant list each and every attacks details and it would be WP:UNDUE on just one. However, if you want to expand each section (and a secin cant be just 1 para/sentence) then that would be neutral.(Lihaas (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)).Reply
- Please do not talk to me in Wikipolicy-talk. As long as there is adequate amount of secondary sources, any topic can be escalated into a full article. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 22:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Dont think that article would pass a deletion discussion butyou can try it. Nevertheless, the sources should not be lumped onto the end and we still cant havejust 1 section while others are listed.(Lihaas (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)).Reply
- Have you ever heard of commenting? You can comment out citation you find "excessive". We CAN have just a single section, what prompted you to think otherwise? That incident has over 500 sources reporting it and 50 more reporting it again after the release of video. Mind you this is just English sources. Had I had the time I would expand that section all the way into a full article. I do not see anyone nominating such an article where 15 people got executed up for deletion like that. Also please consider archiving your talk page. It has over 200 sections. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 23:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- You can try that but its not likely to pass a deletion discussion and it is UNDUE to mention just 1 incident when there are others that killed more and are more notable.
- I reiterate, cite the relevant info from each article to each bit and dont just throw them all on the end;.
- Also kindly dont refactor my talk page. Policy exists for a reason. regardless of who likes it or not.(Lihaas (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)).Reply
- What policy governs your talk page? -- A Certain White Cat chi? 05:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
See ro:Wikipedia:Schimbarea_numelui_de_utilizator#White Cat → とある白い猫. Sorry for the long delay. Razvan Socol (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Your bot タチコマ robot's last action is Aug, 2008. If you have any comment to remove bot status of タチコマ robot, please notify to here. Your bot status will be removed on 1 Feb, 2012 (UTC). --Devunt (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I too was harassed by a user (for years) so I can sympathies with your frustration with the site - probably better than most. I understand my opposition to your proposal upsets you. I am not commenting at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights in opposition to your proposal to upset you. My remarks are entirely based on issues commons and I dealt with back in 2006. I was among the people who was most displeased with the removal of so many decent images, particularly images from the Soviet space program. Unfortunately it is a matter of how copyright law works in practice which is very different from any other law.
That said I hope to work with you because you clearly are a motivated wikipedian and I hope our disagreement doesn't reduce your motivation.
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 14:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- No offense is taken! I have no issue with your voicing your opinion. That's what makes WP good and America so great (not sure exactly where you are from, but WP works within the states, so we at least take advantage of its freedom). Just because we disagree doesn't mean we can't get along. Buffs (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
- That is good to hear. Constant harassment can lead to a lot of stress so I was not sure if I was adding to it - something I want to avoid. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Nope. No issues. You are expressing your ideas in a public forum and you aren't being disrespectful, so I see no issues here. I may disagree with you or think your ideas are wrong/off-base, but that doesn't mean you can't express them. As a matter of fact, I took an oath to protect those freedoms. Buffs (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
|
