Talk:Leo J. Meyer

Rank section

Why not try something like this:

Dates of rank

	Private, National Guard: October 1937
	Private First Class, National Guard: July 1938
	Corporal, National Guard: May 1940
	Staff Sergeant, US Army: March 1941
	Technical Sergeant, US Army: May 1941
	Master Sergeant, US Army: November 1941
	Second Lieutenant, US Army: March 1943
	First Lieutenant, US Army: February 1944
	Captain, US Army: February 1946
	Master Sergeant, US Army: June 1947
	First Lieutenant, US Army: September 1948
	Major, US Army: March 1955
	Lieutenant Colonel, US Army: October 1961
	Colonel, US Army: March 1969

Stolen from George S Patton. Avruch ^T 21:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

intent

The original chart was designed to be simple and informative and intentionally no eye-wash, to spark some interest in reading about the differences between the NG, AUS, USAR, and RA. Meyerj (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Trimmed

I have cut down the size of this article and removed the non-notable content. However, I believe it is still too long. I also think there could be WP:COI worries about its creation. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Truth be told, I don't think having received an award thrice as did "303 other men" for military service is in itself notable at all. If this article were again nominated for AfD, I would support deletion. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny you should say that and then file the nomination yourself less than an hour later. Avruch ^T 23:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My opinion as to how this falls under Wikipedia notability guidelines is only my own. I renominated the article because questions about its nobility were raised at WP:ANI. Clearly, many editors think the article subject is not notable, but many do think it's notable. If the outcome is an unambiguous keep this time, I'll be happy. I do think that if a consensus of editors thinks Meyer is notable, then the military bio guidelines should be clarified so this doesn't happen again. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

an excessively zealous Wikipedia administrator/editor

“Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, it is a mega traffic meta blog with alphabetized entries. Strong emotional responses are wonted from noobs until they learn how things work around here. Back off is all, it's not worth it, find some articles where you have a bit of knowledge and there aren't too many PoV warriors and trolls lurking about. Half the people who edit here are crazy. Many of the rest are either writing way beyond their ilk or are trying to sell something. When you have more experience, you may sometimes be able to apply WP dispute methodologies and your understanding of the system to sway an article into something resembling scholarship but beware, you'll end up spending most of your time protecting articles you've helped build from vandals, trolls and fools.

First thing though, get a username now, you don't want your IP showing up all over the place and nobody, including me, gives much heed or trust to an anon. I hope this helps and by the bye, welcome to Wikipedia! :) Gwen Gale 19:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

…Heck, the whole point of registering was to be able to nominate silly articles for deletion. However, it seems that any three fans can keep any cruft-only article from being deleted. You're starting to convince me that this isn't an encyclopedia. I'd have to hyphenate "mega-traffic meta-blog" though. (I blame my copy-edit mentors for my compulsions to use hyphens.)

…I guess I'll move on. No one has vandalized (or fixed) my ridiculously short summary for Normative yet. Unfortunately, I'm out of ideas for that article. Netuser500 20:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha! Sorry, I truly do ignore IP numbers and no, ….Forget AfD, mostly, it's a waste of time. Let the junior woodchuck club (Photo of Hitler Youth) handle them. Normative is not troll bait but give it time. Gwen Gale 20:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)"