User talk:Shaheenjim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Re: Moses was White 2 RE: your edit to Pam Beesly 3 Pam Beesly 4 justin, minor scrubs characters 5 Lost 6 Blocked 7 Unblock 8 Your reverts 9 General of the Armies 10 Pam Beesly Edit 11 Army General merges 12 Discussion area for United States General articles 13 House 14 RE: General of the Army (Russia) 15 Disruption on General articles 15.1 TY 16 Edit warring on General of the Armies 17 Russian Marshals, Chief Marshals and General Majors 18 Bliss and March 19 General of the Armies 20 Da Yuan Shuai 21 re: General Officer 22 Re: Seven Seas

[edit] Re: Moses was White

I think you missed the point of Andy's whole comment on Money (The Office episode). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.59.90.2 (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: your edit to Pam Beesly

Agreed, I don't know why that was removed in the first place. -Mike Payne 05:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pam Beesly

Just FYI, I'm going to keep removing that sentence every time you insert it, and others are doing the same. It has no place here. -Mike Payne 20:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Me, too. --EXV // + @ 01:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] justin, minor scrubs characters

hi would you be willing to comment on the Talk page for List of minor characters of Scrubs regarding your opinion on the toy unicorn Justin thanks--Jac16888 18:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lost

Unless you have specific sources for these connections that these are indeed connections and not coincidences, don't add them back. Thanks.--CyberGhostface 20:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to be more specific, since you've added it back twice since User:CyberGhostface's note: suggesting that there's a connection between the Lost character Jacob and the Biblical character Jacob is original research/speculation; lacking a citation for a reliable source that such a connection is plausible, such speculation will be removed. --EEMeltonIV 07:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that it is your responsibility to provide reliable citations for the information you are adding. See WP:NOR and WP:V. Further violations may result in a block. --Yamla 15:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, you may now be in violation of WP:3RR. --Yamla 15:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You have now been blocked for your violations of WP:3RR. --Yamla 16:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your change to Ben Linus and substantial concern about it. Please refrain from readding this information unless you can build a consensus for your version. --Yamla 23:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for your continued violations of WP:NOR after multiple warnings. --Yamla 00:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock

Note that this user was repeatedly warned about WP:NOR and WP:RS, both of which the user violated here. This matter was discussed on the admin noticeboard and found to be original research. --Yamla 15:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Further note that as a result of the warnings, I added a source. So clearly it wasn't OR. And the discussion on the admin noticeboard was small and shallow. - Shaheenjim 19:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your reverts

Your blanket reverts to General of the Armies, which erase all of the material I added, is bordering on breaking the policy of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles not to mention that that sort of behavior is generally considered rude. I encourage you to discuss exactly what you have a problem with on the talk page before simply removing all edits not your own. Please don't start an edit war. -OberRanks 21:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

My answer to your concern is here [1]. Put back the material if you like, but please dont blanket revert my material since Ive added nothing to the article which isnt sourced and verified. -OberRanks 00:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have now put it back in for you [2]. See how easy that was? -OberRanks 00:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General of the Armies

Thanks for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMrDolomite&diff=158063429&oldid=157233320 your note on my talk page. I have incorporated the copyedit wording _and_ the {{otheruses4}} in a manner which clarifies the scope of that article, as well as directing readers to similarly named articles.

As some aside comments to try to improve your WP contributions and interactions with other editors, please try to assume good faith on the part of other people's edits. While the edit summary you left during the edit here was not very useful, at least the comment you left on my talk page provided some clues as to the content change you were thinking about.

However, as is obvious by the rest of this talk page, and the comment "Don't revert my edit again.", remaining civil is not as easy as one would think. Remember that neither you, nor I, nor any other editor has ownership of an article. We all have various watchlists and interests and try to improve WP content, formatting and structure.

I admit that I had not thought about other countries' ranks not being 5 star, and appreciate that once again the many eyes of WP editors caught that omission. However, what rank is the one to which you refer to in the statement, "General of the Army is not the only 5 star rank in the US army"?

Thanks — MrDolomite • Talk 22:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Re: your reply on my talk page

Um, no, General of the Armies is not a 5 star rank. Pershing wore 4 stars and could have made any insignia, and logically there are arguments that it since it is superior to the 5 star General of the Army (United States), then it could be interpreted as 6 stars. I must be misunderstanding somehow.

In this edit, good use of {{Otheruses4}}. It is a copyedit discussion if one needs to re-mention the name of the title of the article in the dab template text, but at least it should be crystal clear to readers. — MrDolomite • Talk 23:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pam Beesly Edit

Good point, but she said "I am" after talking on the phone, which made me think the question was about the wedding: i think she would have said "I do" or something like that instead if her mother asked about whether she loved Jim or not, just my own personal opinion, since there's no obvious answer. You bring up a good point though, and thanks for pointing out the mistake.

-Ryan

[edit] Army General merges

Is there some centralized discussion on this? I can't seem to find any. --Hemlock Martinis 03:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge probably isn't the right word for what I did (even though I was the one who used it). Even before I made my edits today, the General (United States) article already covered all the topics that were covered by the other articles I changed today. I added information to the General (United States) article from other articles, but the information I added was on topics that were already covered by the General (United States) article. So even if I hadn't merged the articles, I still would've made the same changes to the General (United States) article. Then once the General (United States) article had all the information that the other articles had, there was no reason not to change them to redirects to the General (United States) article. - Shaheenjim 04:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion area for United States General articles

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Discussion_for_various_United_States_General_articles for a common discussion area. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a note to that section, questioning the redirect of Five-star general to Field Marshal. -- Narsil 20:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Russian military doings haven't changed much from Soviet times, so I would expect not, but I don't know for certain. Chief Marshal- I don't know. Have a look at the revision history of Army ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation for users who know lots about this, and also check out www.mil.ru - roam around the Ru section as well, maybe there's a rank section - and www.warfare.ru. Cheers Buckshot06 13:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read my first response. CHIEF MARSHAL - I DON'T KNOW. I am not a real expert, though I've tried to help with your other questions at General of the Army. I'd refer you also to the other sites I mentioned above. Cheers Buckshot06 12:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] House

Thanks for the plot synopsis of the latest episode of House, I was looking forward to it as I haven't had a chance to watch it yet :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.28.81.205 (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: General of the Army (Russia)

It was an edit from an IP that had previous vandalism history, and it looked like it was removing part of a perfectly valid sentence. If it's incorrect, you can go ahead and remove it. GlassCobra 16:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption on General articles

I asked you not to do it again and you did anyway. Creating three identical articles, against a merger vote, is against policy specificaly WP:OWN and WP:CON. The matter has been reported to the administrators. I think you will find they will not be on your side with this but I guess we will see. -OberRanks 04:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TY

Thank you for respecting the opinion and not reverting the reestablishment of the Lieutenant General (United States) article back to a redirect. Thats a very good sign that people are now working together. -OberRanks 08:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring on General of the Armies

Just a warning - you very nearly got blocked for this statement. The three revert rule is not a loophole to be tiptoed around. Reverting repeatedly is considered disruptive irrespective of precisely how many edits you make in any 24 hour period. Instead, I have protected the article. However, as the other "side" were almost as bad, I have protected the article instead. But continue edit warring against consensus and you will end up getting blocked. I notice you are discussing much of this "General" business in other areas, and would suggest you continue to do so, as progress is being made. Neil ☎ 18:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

SJ you are really making yourself look bad here and I urge you to stop. Edit warring got the article protected and you are now on record as going to the protecting admin and asking that the other side in this dispute be banned from the site. You have also littered Wikipedia with statements such as "your edits make the article worse" and you threw in a personal attack by calling me "self centered". This is helping noone and seriously hurting you. I did similar things a year and a half ago and had to leave this site in shame, only now able to reestablish my name somewhat. Do not let that happen to you. I would suggest starting a section on the article talk page entitled "What I think is wrong with this article". List the points by number so they can be easily answered. People will then be happy to work with you. With that said, I wish you well, and I'm logging off. -OberRanks 20:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have already described what I think it wrong with the article at Talk:General_of_the_Armies#First_sentence and Talk:General_of_the_Armies#Pershing. I see no reason to create yet another section to discuss the same thing. We're already discussing the same topic on several different talk pages in lots of different sections. - Shaheenjim 20:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russian Marshals, Chief Marshals and General Majors

Please see Talk:Chief Marshal and Talk:Army ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation. --Dmitry _{(talk •contibs )} 20:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bliss and March

Regarding Bliss and March, I'm not sure there's a single online source that references all that information. Essentially, the temporary ranks of general and lieutenant general were only authorized in the National Army, which was the conscript/volunteer force authorized by emergency legislation for World War I (the equivalent of the World War II Army of the United States). Only two temporary generals were actually authorized for the National Army, so when Bliss was replaced by March as chief of staff, Bliss was made a brevet general to maintain his four-star status for the duration of the war (which I guess made him a temporary temporary general). The National Army was disestablished on June 30, 1920 by the Army Reorganization Act of that year, and the general and lieutenant general ranks went with it. Pershing only got to keep his rank thanks to special Congressional legislation that commissioned him a permanent general in the Regular Army. See the following articles from the NYTimes free archive:

“Rank of General for Bliss and March: Former Gets Brevet Title for Services Abroad - Latter Becomes Chief of Staff”, The New York Times, May 21, 1918, <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A0CE7DC163EE433A25752C2A9639C946996D6CF> 

“House Committee For Two Generals: Pershing Wins Unanimous Vote, March by 8 to 7 on Non-partisan Decision”, The New York Times, July 31, 1919, <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9D03E5DF1738E13ABC4950DFB1668382609EDE> 

“Only Major Generals Now; March, Liggett and Bullard Lose War Rank”, The New York Times, June 30, 1920, <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9501E2DB103AE03ABC4850DFB066838B639EDE> 

Bliss and March retired as major generals, but were advanced to general on the retired list in 1930, when Congress passed legislation that restored all retired officers to their highest wartime ranks. You can reference this in the individual Bliss and March biographies in Commanding Generals, or by consulting the NYTimes pay archive. Morinao 06:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, between September 3, 1919 and June 30, 1920 an active duty General of the Armies coexisted with active duty lieutenant generals and generals. Note, however, that the General of the Armies commission was for life, so even after Pershing retired in 1924, he was still carried on the active duty rolls. So General of the Armies also coexisted with general as an active duty rank from February 20, 1929; with lieutenant general and general from August 5, 1939; and with lieutenant general, general, and general of the Army from December 16, 1944; until Pershing's death on July 15, 1948. Morinao 18:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General of the Armies

While one can argue that before Public Law 94-479 was passed in 1976 to promote George Washington to the rank the relative status of that rank with that of General of the Army was unclear, that law unambiguously states that "the grade of General of the Armies of the United States is established, such grade to have rank and precedence over all other grades of the Army, past or present." That leaves unresolved only whether Pershing's appointment as General of the Armies of the United States should be considered as equivalent to Washington's or not, since the law recreates the grade only for Washington. Indeed one could argue that Pershing's rank should be considered equivalent to General of the Army since otherwise he would be by date of appointment senior to Washington who was appointed to that rank as of July 4, 1976. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hard to say where General of the Army of the United States fits. It was never used at the same time as the ranks we'd like to compare it to. One might say that it along with General of the Armies of the United States and the rank of Major General Commanding the Army are all the same in that they were intended to be conferred upon only one officer at any one time, such officer subordinate only to the President himself. Note that the insignia of Major General Commanding the Army was three stars during the Civil War era. Alexander Macomb, Jr.'s 1829 portrait indicates that his insignia as Major General Commanding the Army was at that time a single wreathed star in gold, but he was not only the Major General Commanding the Army, he was the only active duty major general then. If we go with such a concept, it would be to best to simply note that the rank simply has as many stars as needed to differentiate it from other general ranks in use at the time. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

True, but color change has been used as a rank indicator for the Army before, most notably in the Lt. Col. and Major ranks, where the difference was originally one of having the oak leaf match the epaulet or differ from it. It clearly was a different rank, and there were contemporaneous officers to Pershing who held the rank of General. Insofar as we use stars as a short hand for relative officer rank, Pershing clearly had more than 4 silver stars. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

For Pershing, who knows whether he was 5 or 6 star, but Washington was clearly placed in a separate higher rank than General of the Army, so his rank can't be a 5 star rank in the sense of ranking generals by stars. Perhaps one could say that the rank transcends stars. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. "Stars" in the sense of n-star general is a just a shorthand for indicating relative rank, not a mechanism for generically describing the insignia which vary widely by time and place. I doubt anyone would refer to a Canadian lieutenant general as a three maple leaf general. Trying to read anything more than that is silly. Caerwine Caer’s whines 15:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps the British ranks need to be removed from 5 star rank and Category:British 5 star officers need to go to CfD. The British insignia do not use stars, and as far as I can tell have never used stars, yet somehow, someone decided stars would be a good way to class their ranks. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Da Yuan Shuai

As far as I am aware of the Rank of Grand Marshal or equivalent rank are not used currently in the Republic of China rank tables, so it is more of historical note.

Regarding the Grand Marshal rank for Imperial China and the People's Republic, the rank was proposed for Mao but never accepted, so it would be just a proposal; as for Imperial usage, that I'm not too clear on. Aldis90 (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: General Officer

Please do not delete messages from article talk pages as you did here. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Seven Seas

I no longer believe that there was originally a list of seven seas. Seven is a mystical number in European culture and the phrase is probably just a fancy way to say "everywhere".

I didn't include the Aegean Sea because for purposes of the map and the list, I considered it as just part of the Mediterranean and not a distinct sea. The Mediterranean has many seas and the Adriatic, which I did include, is most separate from it.

I hope this helps. Thanks for your past and future work on one of my favorite articles.

Foobaz·o< 12:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no single "definitive" list of the Seven Seas. Virtually all major seas known to Europeans and Middle Easterners have been at some time or other, by some author or other, categorized as one of the Seven Seas. —Lowellian (reply) 16:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The current version of the article is eurocentric and is rather neglectful of the usage of the term Seven Seas in Arabic and other Middle Eastern literature. It does mention Middle Eastern views, but the treatment is not as complete as it could be. —Lowellian (reply) 16:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that the Arabian Sea is often regarded as part of the Indian Ocean. —Lowellian (reply) 16:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)