Jump to content

User talk:EricSerge/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

IP block exempt

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. Daniel Case (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ribbons added to Military awards and decorations of the United Kingdom

G'day Eric, Thanks for your recent ribbon additions to Military awards and decorations of the United Kingdom. One point to note, the standard ribbon dimension format for Commonwealth ribbons is currently 100x30px (a ratio of 3.33:1). The ribbons you have been creating are 163x45px (a ratio of 3.62:1). Consequently, your ribbons are coming out vertically thinner which, while better than not having a ribbon at all, is not ideal. Please don't take this is a criticism, it is not meant to be, merely a heads up on information you were probably unaware of. Ultimately, I would like to head in the direction of ribbon ratios reflecting the actual ribbon width (ie all ribbons in a given scale a uniform height (probably based on an full scale height of 1/2 inch or 12 mm one of two standard heights for Commonwealth armed forces, the other is 3/8 inch or 10 mm) with the width dependant on the relative ribbon widths, eg full scale widths of 1 3/8 inch, 1 1/2 inch (the standard for ordinary Commonwealth medals), 1 3/4 inch, etc) but that has not current been discussed at WP:ODM yet, let alone gained consensus. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I do note that there are other ribbons currently in use on the page that are still in the 216:60px format (a ratio of 3.63:1) which seems to be the standard for US ribbons. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Good work on updating the ribbons and adding more. The standard Commons categorisation for your ribbons should be 'Category:Ribbon bars of the United Kingdom|X' where X is the full name of the medal (eg Long Service and Good Conduct Medal, not the name of the image file - this will enable it to sort properly in the category window). In the case of Ribbons that were issued predominantly for particular colonies or the Commonwealth Dominions (Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa), then 'Category:Ribbon bars of X' should be added as well for each applicable country where X is the country name. If you are not sure of whether this applies, just categorise it for the UK and drop me a line. Once they have been categorised, the bot template indicating that categories need to be checked can be removed. I have updated the categorisation for all the files you have added to the site up to and including the Northern Island Home Service Medal (dif). Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Scouter's Training Award

If you can expand or reformat this so it has a little more prose, we can nominate it for DYK. Please do within the next few days. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and nominated it for you. But it needs to be expanded to survive and you need to properly format the refs. It's currently at the top of this section: Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_August_29 — Rlevse • Talk • 01:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
That's more than enough. Thanks and nice work. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Found the Scouter's Key article too. I'll check and DYK it for you later today. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Please go here and work on the issue: Template_talk:Did_you_know#Scouter.27s_Training_Award — Rlevse • Talk • 19:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't know what to tell you there. I fleshed it out a bit, and all he did was update the timestamps on his previous comments instead of giving further constructive feedback. EricSerge (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Centralize this discussion at User_talk:Gadget850#Scouter.27s_Training_Award, join in there. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Done, thanks for the guidance, new to the DYK nomination process. EricSerge (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Gadget is the Scouting WikiProject coordinator and I'm the coord emeritus. You should list your new articles in the new article section at WP:SCOUT. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Both are approved now and should make it to a DYK queue and then the main page. I will keep an eye out for unexpected problems. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Greetings!

Wilhelmina Will has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Wilhelmina Will (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! Cheers! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 09:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Scouter's Training Award

This will appear on the main page as a DYK on 7 Sep, 2-8pm, Eastern time. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for shepherding it through the process. EricSerge 01:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Will let you know when the other one comes up. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Scouter's Training Award

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Scouter's Key Award

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!
Wilhelmina Will has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween!

If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Cheers! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Korean Service Medal

No worries; I choose the closest template I could find to the one no longer available, and it had the medal on it, with others people might find interesting. :D I see you were busy cleaning up after Seth too; he seems to be trying to help. Feel free to review my other cleanup edits after him; Favonian mass rev'ed his remaining edits. Dru of Id (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I can appreciate good faith edits, but I also remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. :D Based on my understanding of rules if he was doing edits in good faith he could have just been boldly editing. The Korean Service Medal insertion of conjecture about issuing the medal again if the balloon goes up in Korea was where I realized that they may not all be good faith. Feel free to look after my edits too, I am not as good of a copy editor as I would like. Do you do work on WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals articles? With more active participants it would be easier to maintain and improve the quality of articles related to that subject matter. EricSerge (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I normally do historical U.S. Representative tables and look at the individual articles (briefly) and make minor revisions I notice (a chairmanship that didn't end until the year after a death in office, for example) but just started looking at recent changes when I didn't want to commit to being neck deep for hours...and spent hours cleaning up after sethfinleythenerd; I questioned the initial changes he'd made there but only fixed his spelling (which he repeated elsewhere), and saw the red template (don't know when it went red), looked at his contribs at the beginning, noticed they were getting reverted, and followed from the beginning with a fine tooth comb. Some were actually helpful, but very few, although he realized somewhere along the way not to change the pipe to match the article...(At one point I got ornery, reactivated a dormant MilitaryPublications account, found exact references and posted the open source regulation section on it to Talk:Defense Distinguished Service Medal). sftn got blocked later, and summarily reverted. Dru of Id (talk) 07:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland

Hello. My name's Maciej. I live in Poland. According to your change in article (Mr. Hillary's picture commentary) I need to tell you, that the note was true. The Polish Law of 10 November 1992 (Dz.U. 1992 nr 90 poz. 452 – in Polish) states that it is not allowed to wear the full insignia of the decoration and it's miniature, rosette or ribbon bar at the same time (§ 26.) Best regards. 90.156.41.111 (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, the citation that you listed is particularly useful. I have no doubt that Sir Edmund may be wearing the insignia incorrectly, but did not believe that the commentary about this fact added to the overall quality of the article. The internet abounds with pictures of individuals wearing honours incorrectly. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I really think, that the commentary was not necessary also, and your removal of it was OK. The incorrectly wearing of honours is quite common among polish generals for example (shame...). I just wanted to give you the reliable source :) I don't use global account, but you can meet me on the Commons and pl-wiki. Cheers. 90.156.41.111 (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

Hello EricSerge. Thanks for the speedy deletion work you are doing; it's a very important activity! I did want to let you know, though, regarding Jacob allgood, that current consensus holds that it is bad practice to tag articles for speedy deletion as lacking context (CSD A1) or content (CSD A3) moments after creation, as users may be actively working on the article content. Ten to fifteen minutes is considered a good time to wait before tagging such articles under either of these criteria. Please note that before an appropriate waiting period is over, the articles should not be marked as patrolled, so that the wait does not result in the article escaping review at a later time. Nothing here is meant to apply to any other criterion; attack pages and copyright violations especially should be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. illogicalpie(eat me) 17:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Pie.jpeg

illogicalpie(eat me) has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!


Spread the tastiness of pies by adding {{subst:GivePie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

DYK for Royal Canadian Mounted Police Long Service Medal

Thanks for the article Victuallers (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Common Security and Defence Policy Service Medal

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the "better quality image"

EricSerge, thank you for uploading the better quality images of the USCG marksmanship ribbons. I have been looking for better images of those ribbons. Where did you find them? --McChizzle (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I made them using the existing png ribbon image. Glad to help. EricSerge (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Militaryperson Infobox

I have a question. Are we deleting all images (rank, awards, etc.) in infoboxes of military personnel? I understand how flags should not be included, per MOS:FLAG, though they do serve the purpose of the infobox, according to MOS:INFOBOX, which allows "readers to identify key facts at a glance."
However, I understand how some infoboxes contain more info than other and, as a result, present an opportunity for a cluster of images and links. So, is it out intent to delete images from infoboxes, or are we going by a case-by-case basis (for instance, the article of George Washington has flags & images in the infobox, yet is rated a good article). Here's some other articles to consider, Carter Ham, William Westmoreland, Audie Murphy. Thanks for you help with this and let me know what you think!
Bullmoosebell (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I was unaware of the MOS:FLAG until I saw the edits and summary on Carter Ham. On George Washington, the two images in the infobox are the two anachronistic rank insignia. Those insignia did not exist during his time. In William Westmoreland's infobox the Army flag and seal are purely aesthetic, the rank image is a nice quick view reference, and having his top personal decorations is also a useful bit of quick view reference. Audie Murphy's infobox has nearly more images than info. The MOH is represented twice and three of his five foreign decorations are included with his top US decorations. Including the Army seal, National Guard Seal, and all of the unit insignia is again purely aesthetic, and could be seen as a bit over the top. That infobox could probably stand to be cleaned up.
The standard that I will continue to apply will be the subjective: quick view reference ie: top decorations, rank, etc. That might be an interesting discussion to start not just among those who contribute to military bios, but to bios as a whole. EricSerge (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

T:TDYK

When you create beyond-the-stub articles with inline cites like Polish Army Medal consider nominating them for front page exposure at T:TDYK. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Dang it, I let time get away from me, two days too long. I have an article I transferred to the mainspace four days ago, I will list that one. EricSerge (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is requested in an open discussion

I invite you to participate in a discussion at Talk:Audie Murphy before it becomes an edit war. Thank you, in advance, Bullmoosebell (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Expeditionary Service Award

Sorry, I may have jumped the gun with the others but this is out. The citation is a State Department telegram. Tag as hoax if you don't believe it and give it a few months.

It is not a matter of what I believe or think. It is a matter of what can be reliably sourced. EricSerge (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

re: your message

Hi Eric, I've left a message for you on my talk page -- Marek.69 talk 23:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad to recognize a good deed. EricSerge (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Cheers Eric and Happy Wiki-ing Marek.69 talk 23:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Cross of Merit of the Minister of Defence of the Czech Republic

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

labelling people

Can I label the perpetrators of the My Lai Massacre as terrorists? According to you they are terrorists... or should we cut out editorials and just call them murderers. Public awareness (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Since the perpetrators of the My Lai Massacre were uniformed members of a military force, they would be best described as having committed a War Crime. Using the community derived definition of Terrorism from that article, "Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)." You are seeking changes that are significantly different than the community consensus. You want to make changes, then take it to the talk page of an article and build consensus. The phrasing you changed on several articles was sufficient for the articles to achieve WP:Good article and WP:Featured article status. Building consensus is key. Otherwise you are merely exercising your opinion. EricSerge (talk) 05:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, so status quo is held firm. Terrorism is a currently allowed label, but evil is not an allowed label. "Evil is the violation of, or intent to violate, some moral code." I could think of thousands of people who could be fit the "community derived definition", maybe we could add evil to the article, "the evil hijackers...". Actually I think there must be a "consensus" on the word terrorism because some articles do avoid the label where you expect it the most. Its clear the Al-Qaeda page is seperating the facts from the opinions in that it says "these people think they are terrorists" but we never call al-qaeda a terrorist group. Ha, nevermind I found it on the talk page for al-qaeda "Wikipedia has a policy of not calling people or groups "terrorist". This is not an indication of condoning "terrorist" activities, but of neutrality, and avoidance of passing judgment, affirming or denying." Now will you help me remove the opinions?Public awareness (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Evil gets tricky when trying to pin down the "moral code" part. Take it to the talk pages of the articles that you wish to change and propose it. Consensus is one of the foundations which Wikipedia is built upon. EricSerge (talk) 06:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I saw, thanks for the info. I will look for other "ducks" as I watch a few of the pages that he was editing on. EricSerge (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Special Service Medal (Canada)

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
East and Central Africa Medal
Commander Forces Command (Australia)
Suggestion box
Australian Cadet Forces Service Medal
Clayton Fisher
Bulgarophiles
Distinguished Service Medal (Australia)
Australian Defence Medal
Nkwe ya Gauta
Chief of Navy (Australia)
Warrant Officer of the Navy
Peter Arnison
Volunteer Reserves Service Medal
Luan Hoxha
Ronn Motor Company
East and West Africa Medal
Dipnote
Sebastian Kunjukunju Bhagavathar
Afghanistan Medal (United Kingdom)
Cleanup
Operational Service Medal for the Democratic Republic of Congo
John Hoad
Intelligence Star
Merge
Orders, decorations, and medals of South Africa
Bruce E. MacDonald
War on Terror
Add Sources
Pacific Star
Campaign medal
Chris Barrie (admiral)
Wikify
Mouldi Kefi
Dario Rivarossa
Welborn G. Dolvin
Expand
Bronze Cross of Rhodesia
Technical surveillance counter-measures
University of Florida ROTC

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Canadian Forces Medallion for Distinguished Service

Thanks for creating Canadian Forces Medallion for Distinguished Service, a well written and referenced article. Well done. — MrDolomite • Talk 17:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, glad I could oblige. EricSerge (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

INTRO Fdutil

Hi! Or should I say "Salut!"...? Seems we share the same interest. As you may (or may not) have noticed, I've been really hard at it in Russian Federation awards. I created or developped most articles. I saw your location as the USA but you have a French user ID and seem to know Canadian ODMs. I look forward to hearing from you, feel free to tell me about yourself on my talk page (less crowded). Cheers! Fdutil (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyes@wikimedia.org.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Concensus sought

Please have a read at the following talk page Medal for Battle Merit. The article requires a concensus for a proper title. Thanks ! Fdutil (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it me?

When you have a free minute, I'd be much obliged if you could go have a looksee at the talk page of Talk:Medal "For the Liberation of Warsaw". I was confronted with a message that to me anyway, seemed biased to say the least. Please read it, and my response to it as well and tell me, is it me? Am I wrong? Or is this guy 100% biased in his assessment of both the article and the Soviets vis à vis this medal. He even left a message on my talk page offering to upgrade the article rating should I agree to include his changes... I am floored. This guy was actually given responsibilities on Wikipedia?!? I hope he isn't an example of what I am to expect here because my input will stop right here right now... Fdutil (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I can see where he is coming from on the "heroic liberation" thing. In quotation marks it is obvious that it comes from the source. Without the quotation marks it could be interpreted the way he has done. The argument about propganda and actual battles, I cannot speak to intelligently. I would interject that most medals could broadly be interpreted as a form of propoganda by thier issuing governemnt if you want to split hairs.
Assume good faith is one of the pillars of the Wikipedia community. I believe that you are both acting in good faith, but viewing Piotrus's editing interests in Polish history he is going to be inclined to project his views on articles related to his interests. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Smile!

A Barnstar!
A smile for you
You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.0.36 (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

Thank you

The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
For your excellent work in saving the article Papal Orders of Chivalry from a copyright disaster that would have rolled it back years. Thank you very much for not only taking the time to rewrite it, but doing such an excellent job of it. Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the recognition. EricSerge (talk) 11:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Voting time

Please drop by Talk:Medal_for_Battle_Merit for a vote. Thanks! Fdutil (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

  • Account activation codes have been emailed.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
  • The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 04:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

detesting you like cancer.

I just woke up and I read your smug, self-satisfied, and unwated comments on my talk page. I detest you like a cancer, you f****** a******. Don't contact me again.Johncheverly 12:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)johncheverly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncheverly (talk • contribs)

Um, okay. Thanks. EricSerge (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

Derrick Comedy

Thanks, I wasn't completely sure on where the refs should go (and didn't realise it wouldn't get an automatic heading, but was too lazy to fix that up). The duplicate section was just bugging me, so my main intent was just to fix that. xD 203.100.216.230 (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (PS: The "may or may not include vandalism" thing was just me trolling. I didn't vandalise, honest. =) )

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

Order of wearing - Timor Leste Solidarity Medal

Note that the Timor Leste Solidarity Medal is not specifically mentioned in the Australian order of wearing - it is classed as a foreign award and thus is generally worn in order of "date that the medal was earnt", after all Australian awards. The statement in the table in the Timor Leste Solidarity Medal#Precedence section that says in Australia it is preceded by the NATO Medal and followed by none is incorrect. I'm guessing you deduced that from Australian Honours Order of Precedence#Foreign awards. I guess I need to add a bit more text to make it clear that the foreign awards are not in order of wearing. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I cannot readily find it, but I deduced it partly from around here: [1] and in reading some reg about medals from foreign countries being worn in the order they are authorized. The last medal authorized before the Timor Leste Solidarity Medal was the NATO Medal. Now it could be that I am a bit off, and have gotten it mixed up with New Zealand medal regs. too. It is the end of my day and I am going to bed, but if you find something please feel free to change it or delete it or whatever. Part of the beauty of Wikipedia. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Jolly good. Sleep well. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
http://medals.nzdf.mil.nz/info/orderofwear.html#mfo :
1. Worn in order of date of participation by the recipient in the campaign, operation or peacekeeping mission for which awarded.
2. It is relatively common that different individuals with the same campaign medals will wear them in different orders, due to when they served in each theatre.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI(?):

Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of East Timor,
Category:Orders, decorations, and medals related to service in East Timor.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Do you have any information on the East Timor Halibur Medal? (I haven't been able to locate any.) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Here is what I have: [2] Looks like it may be a campaign type medal. EricSerge (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
That's a useful document! Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

Order of Orange-Nassau

I see that in August 2010, you reactivated the section "Selected recipients". Why?
(I assume you must have read the opinion: Every year about 4500 people are accepted as a member of the Order of Orange-Nassau, while some 3000 existing members die (see http://www.nrc.nl/binnenland/article1876441.ece/14_vragen_over_de_lintjesregen). The tiny list below is therefore both useless and misleading. It may make sense creating a list of the previously (until 1996) awarded officer and higher awards somewhere.)
 Also, you may be interested to read Talk:Order of Orange-Nassau#Removal of "Notable Recipients" section.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hell, asking what I did yesterday is one thing, but an edit in August 2010? In examining the edit history it appears my primary aim was to revert a page move that was not properly discussed and I did a copy paste move just like the anon editor did. Definitely hamfisted, but it did the job, lol. While the article resided at Order of Oranje-Nassau [3] is when the selected recipients was re-added. I really have no opinion about it, and figure that a notable recipient list for the Order of Orange-Nassau is as useful as one would be for the Order of the British Empire. Kill the section. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm. Sometimes I have trouble remembering what I did yesterday ... Thanks for the reply, and also for the posting on the talk page. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

Grand Cross of State

Well, if that's the explanation, it certainly simplifies things. Thanks! J S Ayer (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Canadian Volunteer Service Medal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blitz (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) 11:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

John Swainson and List of Eagle Scouts

Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome. The formatting on the page has jammed me up before too. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

Awards and Decorations of the AFP

Hi Serge, I'll help try to fillout the blanks for the AFP awards. I have a copy of the Awards and Decorations Manual of the AFP but the newer awards (Post 2000) were not included when an updated copy was released. Thanks chewygum

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

DYK for Valour Cross

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal of my addition to an article (1914 Star) in the form of a reference to another article (Spirit of 1914) today, 30 July 2012

I admit these are (given two world wars in the 20th Cent.) extremely complicated issues but frankly I cannot see, Sir, how it could possibly be maintained by anyone, at least as I myelf maintain, with a true knowledge and understanding of the war memorials in the United Kingdom which refer to this matter (see the Talk Page on Spirit of 1914 also by myself, for better or perhaps for worse} that there is no connection between this and the medal in question, in whatever it might consist.

Please bear this in mind. Meanwhile, admittedly and very unfortunately I think, Spirit of 1914 limits itself, at least as I understand it, and for whatever reason since this is clearly not really correct, to Germany, given that there are First World War memorials in the UK having exactly the same name, or a very similar one, in particular one in Edinburgh as quoted in the Talk Page article by myself as indicated here (but this particular aspect of the matter has not I assume any connection with yourself).

Peter Judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.113.207 (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

While adding things to a See also section is somewhat up to an editors judgment, by my reading of WP:SEEALSO, this item would not be included as a bullet point. It would perhaps be very appropriate to an article on the First World War as awhole, but was quite a stretch to be on a medal from said war. It would seem that the biggest issue, which you aptly pointed out, is that the Spirit of 1914 article is written completely from a German perspective. As it currently stands, the articles 1914 Star and Spirit of 1914 are only related by the date of 1914, and neither is appropriate to be added to the others See also section. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I must of course agree with you that the edition by myself was out of any sort of relevance given what you call the current situation. When is it going to change, if at all? I have no idea, I have been trying for years, and nobody it seems wants to know (I am afraid I have to refer in particular to the Hartlepool Council in relation to the war memorials there and even more strangely perhaps to English Heritage). Peter Judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.129.213 (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

What's The Deal???

I just had a Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents notice served on me. It stemmed from the fact i was attempting to make constructive criticisms and additions to two pages. Had the pages been properly detailed and contained complete relevant information I would not have gotten involved. Now is this "project" a democratic one, or is it being run by a handful of geeky despots??? And are they going to bring every article on Wikipedia up to date and fact check every one every day???

--johncheverly (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)johncheverly9/21/12/10:08pm.

Hmm, as I am not part of the discussion on the noticeboard, I cannot really speak to its merit or the gist of the issue. It would seem that you have run afoul of the policy on copyright violation or close paraphrasing see: WP:COPYVIO. Editors should take copyright violations very seriously.
Actually, Wikipedia is not a democracy. The system seems to run on a constructive criticism, consensus based collaborative model. At times it may be maddening, but you see there is no deadline to be finished, so conversation and consensus building can take some time. It takes time to learn all of the ins and outs of Wikipedia, but learning the WP:Manual of Style will help give you credibility as an editor and help you learn how to craft consensus building arguments for the inclusion of content in articles.
If you hope to continue as a constructive participant on Wikipedia, you have to put in the time to learn how it is done and remember that its not personal. An Administrators' noticeboard incident is not the end of the world, but you may need to dial it back a notch in your criticism of articles and the feedback you get from others. Good luck. EricSerge (talk) 03:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Awards and decorations of the non-military uniformed services

Hi, It is my belief (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that the awards and decorations of the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps are civil awards. They are not military awards. If they are not military awards, then they are by default civil awards.

Now take a look at Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the United States. Essentially, I think, the page should consist of subcategories, unless there is nowhere else to put the item. Most of the items listed under Pages in category "Orders, decorations, and medals of the United States" either belongs in Military or Civil. Perhaps there is a subcategory they could be put in that would lead to "Orders, decorations, and medals of the United States" (the parent category). In other words, there is some overcategorization occurring. Take, for example, Intelligence Star, which is overcategorized.

See Orders, decorations and medals of the United States on Commons See how it is just subcategories?

Your comments would be appreciated, if I am on the wrong track I don't want too get to far afield.--Nyctc7 (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The Public Health Service Commissioned Corps and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps are statutory uniformed services with officers holding commissions, therefore they are not civilians. However, they are not military either. I believe it is possible that their awards should go into the container category Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the United States unless you think that Category:Awards and decorations of the Uniformed Services of the United States needs to be created. The drawback of that action is that military awards and decorations would fit that definition as well and it would just clutter things up further.
I agree to your assessment of the overcategorization of Intelligence Star, it should simply be categorized at Category:Awards and decorations of the Central Intelligence Agency which itself should be under Category:Awards and decorations of the United States Intelligence Community as the CIA is one of the constituent parts of the United States Intelligence Community.
On a side note, one thing has bothered me about Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the United States. The United Stats does not present/award/bestow Orders. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The National Guard seems to me to also blur the line between civil and military. I guess whoever created the page Orders, decorations, and medals of the United States solved that problem by making a subcategory "State awards and decorations of the United States". That neatly and effectively sidesteps having to make a distinction between civil and military. I think I will revert my edit on The Public Health Service, as you said it is probably fine where it was, and I will put the NOAA there as well. But I'd like to ponder it a bit more. If I come up with anything, I'll let you know, if not, I'll revert.
I can think of only one order the U.S. bestows, but only to foreigners. The Legion of Merit. But mainly I think the category is called thus to be consistent with the categories Orders, decorations, and medals of (other countries)--Nyctc7 (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

SERIOUSLY thinking of walking away for good...

My latest article Commemorative Decoration of the 50th Anniversary of the Creation of the Railroads was deleted by a guy name User:Fram. He says it is not Notable citing only laws and edicts. I explained all ODMs were created and awarded thusly... Anyway... I reinstated the article and explained my 250 other articles were the same and that more than 1/2 of the 3000 ODM articles on Wiki were like that. I mentioned my articles had been examined and rated by 2 to 5 WikiProjects EACH, most receiving B ratings and that this subject had never come up before. I'm sorry, I've spent so much time and energy developing these articles, I don't have the time or even the will to fight with lacks of common sense such as this anymore. Can somebody please do one of 2 things: 1- Say he's correct, delete all of my 250 articles and I will leave Wiki after saving the HTML for my own web site, or 2- Talk and reason with him, and others because there's obviously a lack of a common understanding among editors on the matter and resolve the matter in a logical way. Fdutil (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I tend to be an inclusionist on places and things, but less so on people. I would think that a national level award meets notability guidelines. You have primary sources and list published sources that are independent of the subject, and should fulfill guidelines, but alas I am not part of the cabal who runs things. I am a bit put out myself lately in dealing with nonconstructive editors and have slowed down my involvement. I understand your frustration, you try to follow guidelines, community standards, and the manual of style, and then see efforts thwarted with no warning or discussion on a talk page. I understand WP:BRD but it can be a bit maddening. I wouldn't take it personal, its not worth it to let someone else get inside your head. It would appear that the editor with whom you disagree is a bit confrontational in their editing style if their talk page is an accurate reflection. Keep up the good work, and know that even if all do not appreciate your efforts, some do. EricSerge (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

A cupcake for you!

Thank you for welcoming me! AJ Harthrob (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

Medal of Honor

Howdy! Remember those excellent reference documents you found for the Medal of Honor article (which specified that the medals are made of gilded metals and red brass, etc)? For some reason, those links have been broken now for several weeks. I thought it might be a fluke, but upon checking again today it made me wonder what happened to them. Here they are again for quick reference: MIL-DTL-3943/1G, MIL-DTL-3943/2H, and MIL-DTL-3943/3G. If you have a minute, and are willing to do so, would you mind looking at them again and seeing if you can figure out what the problem is? Thanks! AzureCitizen (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey there. It looks like those links are temps since when I go to click one from the source it comes up differently than it did the other day. You can get the relevant current docs on the specs page, all of the older docs can also be found there. Here are the Army specs MIL-DTL-3943/1G, the Navy specs MIL-DTL-3943/2H, and the Air Force specs MIL-DTL-3943/3G. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I have replaced the links in the MOH article in such a way that they will stay fixed going forward from here. Would hate to see that stuff get lost, lest it be challenged in the future in the mistaken belief that the medals are actually made of gold, bronze, whatever, etc. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Glad to help. Thanks for fighting the good fight! EricSerge (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of East Timor

rm images from Cat page - Why? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

In looking at WP:Manual of Style/Category pages and reading the statement: Avoid transcluding images on a category page unless you can show how it will enhance and aid navigation. I did not see how it aided in navigation. I will try to crank out the Order of Timor-Leste this week and all three will then have articles. You can revert if you disagree. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 13:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Slight digression: I saw a press release about the Timor Leste Solidarity Medal some time this week‎. (I didn't read it.) Did you see it? If not, do you want me to dig it out? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Back on topic: If you "did not see how it aided in navigation", then clearly its utility is not as obvious as I thought. If the three articles exist soon, then its utility will have been overtaken by events. I guess I'd have preferred it if you'd left it there until you had created the articles, but if you're going to do it "real soon", then I don't see the point of reverting. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I did not see the press release, so that would be great if you could dig it out. There are now articles for the Order of Timor-Leste and the Medal of Merit (East Timor). Mission accomplished. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
OK. Will look for the press release when I'm back in the office. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Order of the Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Security Advisor (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) 11:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kaisar-i-Hind Medal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Stokes (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) 10:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

DYK for USCGC Smilax (WLIC-315)

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Military Medal of Honor (Japan), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ryukyuan (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) 11:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mark A. Milley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meritorious Service Medal (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) 11:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sainik School, Chittorgarh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public school (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) 11:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved and ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

    • Then go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
    • Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
    • Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
    • You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (Your account is now active for 1 year!).
  • If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at [email protected] and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
  • Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
  • Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EricSerge/Archive_1&oldid=1088018238"