User talk:OberRanks

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OberRanks.

Template:Archive box collapsible

TALK PAGE RULES

1) All posts left here must conform to WP:AGF, WP:CIV, and WP:NPA. Violation talk page posts will be removed without comment.	2) If you have come here to discuss matters on a specific article, please take your concerns to the article talk page. I will transcribe all talk page posts here about articles to the appropriate article talk page.	3) I have been on Wikipedia for over a decade. Please don't template a regular.

The talk page for my former account "Husnock" also redirects here

File:MPRCFrontEntrance.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MPRCFrontEntrance.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should be pretty clear cut, but I updated it further. Photo taken by a staff member who was there when they opened. Not under any copyright per the MPRC staff (checked this morning actually). -O.R.^Comms 17:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Lion Guard

Hi, just a note. Please stop repeatedly saying that you're taking Lion Guard off your watchlist and not editing it any more, only to return shortly thereafter. You've done that several times and it's getting disruptive. I'd like to know whether it's worth my effort and time (and yours as well) to engage you. You are entitled to change your mind, but when it happens over and over again maybe you should just keep your "off the watchlist" thoughts to yourself? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've kept my word about not adding new material to the article. I don't plan to add or remove another thing to that article until either 2024 or when Trump leaves office, whichever comes first. The article is actually off my watchlist now, but I am manually checking the talk page from time to time. -O.R.^Comms 17:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, OberRanks. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Battle of Washington (fiction)

Hello OberRanks,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Battle of Washington (fiction) for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it up, it should be far more clear now. -O.R.^Comms 02:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Minesweeper flotilla (Kriegsmarine)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Minesweeper flotilla (Kriegsmarine), OberRanks!

Wikipedia editor Hydronium Hydroxide just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

When splitting an article, please credit the source(s) of the split in your edit summary (ref Wikipedia:Splitting#How to properly split an article)

To reply, leave a comment on Hydronium Hydroxide's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in any event, I hope you liked it. Those were a fascinating group of naval units to research. -O.R.^Comms 02:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nominations

Nomination of Army of the United States for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Army of the United States is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Army of the United States until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Farside268 (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Regular Army (United States) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Regular Army (United States) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regular Army (United States) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Farside268 (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to assume good faith here, but this kinda looks like a hoax. These are statutory codified components of the United States armed forces which appear in millions of service records. Maybe do a bit more research next time and discuss on the article talk pages first? -O.R.^Comms 21:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Army of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Army (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 11:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rhye's and Fall of Civilization for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rhye's and Fall of Civilization is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhye's and Fall of Civilization (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Coin945 (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need to leave that poor article alone. Third attempt, and after the second one which was an overwhelming "Keep". -O.R.^Comms 03:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Ersland

Not really sure what you're trying to suggest but I literally forgot about the article completely cause I had and have no interest in making an article about it anymore. Delete it, I initially made it 6 years ago couldn't care less about it now. Inexpiable (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its very dangerous to have biography of living persons info on Wikipedia for people who are involved in active controversies. Even more so to have deleted info maintained on a user sub-page. Ersland is a highly controversial figure and the presence of info on him on Wikipedia could easily be used out in the "real world". I'm glad you responded so quickly and we could get that page deleted. -O.R.^Comms 18:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Kappler

Hi, I wanted to point out that the edit summary "revert blanking of sourced material..." was inaccurate, as none of the material restored was cited. I would appreciate if you could be more specific with edit summaries in the future. Thank you! --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was referenced through the general references at the bottom of the article, specifically the SS officer rolls as well as one of the other texts. What was needed were inline citations (which are now added). I would highly suggest using the "citation needed" tag in the future, instead of simply blanking large sections of an article, especially dates of ranks and awards which is something which has been discussed extensively throughout the article talk pages and noticeboards, and has been deemed appropriate for article on Wikipedia. -O.R.^Comms 16:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Bryan Stanyon) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Bryan Stanyon, OberRanks!

Wikipedia editor Semmendinger just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I removed the phrase "to American people"as Wikipedia is not necessarily USA-centered. You can add it back if you'd like - article looks great!

To reply, leave a comment on Semmendinger's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

SEMMENDINGER (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. He would not be known in the US had it not been for Nickelodeon broadcasting the series in the 1980s. That's the only reason I ever learned who he was. On the positive side, a really good actor. The episodes he appeared in were some of the best of the series. -O.R.^Comms 19:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hugo Gutmann

The article Hugo Gutmann has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject fails WP:BIO1E, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MILPEOPLE. There are reliable sources that examine the subject briefly, but only in the context of his relationship to Hitler. I don't think the bar for GNG swings that low and the fact that this article has been under-sourced for eight years indicates there was never much coverage on the subject to begin with.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hugo Gutmann is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Gutmann until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the motivation is here. Pretty famous person, well known in World War II texts. In any event, I replied. -O.R.^Comms 20:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Leipold

Hi, I've removed an external link from this article, as it was a redirect to a porn site. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, now it works ok. I don't know what's wrong here. Restored with apologies. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's crazy! Thanks for checking into it. Leipold was my favorite character from Schindler's List. Didn't do anything except say that one line when they got to the camp about efficiency and was thereafter ignored by Schindler. -O.R.^Comms 13:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for serial copyright violations

I remember from earlier encounters you have a checkered past of dubious image uploads. It seems you have not heeded the warnings you got. this image, claimed as "own work", is quite definitely taken from here, a commercial news source where it is clearly credited to a named journalist. This appears to be from here or here.

Blocked indef, given the long history of recidivism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

OberRanks (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am shocked Future Perfect would come to my page in this way and indef block my account after years on this site, without any discussion, meaningful investigation, or warning. This admin also has been heavily involved with articles I edited, and admitted in a post a few years ago that he was angry, holding a grudge, and wanted me blocked from this site.[1].
He repeated this again on a discussion in which he was a party to the article (see: Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_October_17#File:Fatherland-Nebe.jpg) and stated "Nonsense, no work produced in the US after 1989 could possibly have fallen out of copyright; you have no idea what you're talking about. And I've come to know what to expect from your references to "colleagues" here and there who conveniently told you something or gave you something – the last time you took recourse to explanations like that you were found to be flat-out lying, remember? Should really have indef-blocked you right then and there. Maybe I'll still do so now, or do you care to actually provide that OTRS confirmation? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)"

This is not the person who should be coming here now and indef blocking an account with over a decade on this site with over 10,000 edits as F.P. has been heavily involved with edits I've made in the past, and has expressed anger and a desire to see my account blocked.
As to the concentration camp image he located on the Internet, I found it in my archives of photos from World War II research labeled as a photo from a trip I took over a thirteen years ago. It has circulated since then I am sure, as it is a picture of a pretty famous historical site. The second image, that of the old St. Louis Amory, was easily photographed from the highway when the building still stood. The fact that it would be on several different websites is not surprising at all. I also was involved in the taking of pictures of this building at the time, through my employer, which I can easily prove.

As to being a "serial copyright violator", I've had no other problems or warnings in quite some time, I think for several years. This is not an appropriate block, and I ask it be removed. -O.R.^Comms 21:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I am shocked Future Perfect would come to my page in this way and indef block my account after years on this site, without any discussion, meaningful investigation, or warning.  This admin also has been heavily involved with articles I edited, and admitted in a post a few years ago that he was angry, holding a grudge, and wanted me blocked from this site.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=next&oldid=630131960]. <br/>He repeated this again on a discussion in which he was a party to the article (see: [[Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_October_17#File:Fatherland-Nebe.jpg]]) and stated "Nonsense, no work produced in the US after 1989 could possibly have fallen out of copyright; you have no idea what you're talking about. And I've come to know what to expect from your references to "colleagues" here and there who conveniently told you something or gave you something – the last time you took recourse to explanations like that you were found to be flat-out lying, remember? Should really have indef-blocked you right then and there. Maybe I'll still do so now, or do you care to actually provide that OTRS confirmation? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)"<br/> 
This is not the person who should be coming here now and indef blocking an account with over a decade on this site with over 10,000 edits as F.P. has been heavily involved with edits I've made in the past, and has expressed anger and a desire to see my account blocked.<br/>
As to the concentration camp image he located on the Internet, I found it in my archives of photos from World War II research labeled as a photo from a trip I took over a thirteen years ago.  It has circulated since then I am sure, as it is a picture of a pretty famous historical site.  The second image, that of the old St. Louis Amory, was easily photographed from the highway when the building still stood.  The fact that it would be on several different websites is not surprising at all.  I also was involved in the taking of pictures of this building at the time, through my employer, which I can easily prove.<br/>
As to being a "serial copyright violator", I've had no other problems or warnings in quite some time, I think for several years.  This is not an appropriate block, and I ask it be removed. -[[User:OberRanks|O.R.]]<sup>[[User talk:OberRanks|''Comms'']]</sup> 21:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am shocked Future Perfect would come to my page in this way and indef block my account after years on this site, without any discussion, meaningful investigation, or warning.  This admin also has been heavily involved with articles I edited, and admitted in a post a few years ago that he was angry, holding a grudge, and wanted me blocked from this site.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=next&oldid=630131960]. <br/>He repeated this again on a discussion in which he was a party to the article (see: [[Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_October_17#File:Fatherland-Nebe.jpg]]) and stated "Nonsense, no work produced in the US after 1989 could possibly have fallen out of copyright; you have no idea what you're talking about. And I've come to know what to expect from your references to "colleagues" here and there who conveniently told you something or gave you something – the last time you took recourse to explanations like that you were found to be flat-out lying, remember? Should really have indef-blocked you right then and there. Maybe I'll still do so now, or do you care to actually provide that OTRS confirmation? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)"<br/> 
This is not the person who should be coming here now and indef blocking an account with over a decade on this site with over 10,000 edits as F.P. has been heavily involved with edits I've made in the past, and has expressed anger and a desire to see my account blocked.<br/>
As to the concentration camp image he located on the Internet, I found it in my archives of photos from World War II research labeled as a photo from a trip I took over a thirteen years ago.  It has circulated since then I am sure, as it is a picture of a pretty famous historical site.  The second image, that of the old St. Louis Amory, was easily photographed from the highway when the building still stood.  The fact that it would be on several different websites is not surprising at all.  I also was involved in the taking of pictures of this building at the time, through my employer, which I can easily prove.<br/>
As to being a "serial copyright violator", I've had no other problems or warnings in quite some time, I think for several years.  This is not an appropriate block, and I ask it be removed. -[[User:OberRanks|O.R.]]<sup>[[User talk:OberRanks|''Comms'']]</sup> 21:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am shocked Future Perfect would come to my page in this way and indef block my account after years on this site, without any discussion, meaningful investigation, or warning.  This admin also has been heavily involved with articles I edited, and admitted in a post a few years ago that he was angry, holding a grudge, and wanted me blocked from this site.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=next&oldid=630131960]. <br/>He repeated this again on a discussion in which he was a party to the article (see: [[Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_October_17#File:Fatherland-Nebe.jpg]]) and stated "Nonsense, no work produced in the US after 1989 could possibly have fallen out of copyright; you have no idea what you're talking about. And I've come to know what to expect from your references to "colleagues" here and there who conveniently told you something or gave you something – the last time you took recourse to explanations like that you were found to be flat-out lying, remember? Should really have indef-blocked you right then and there. Maybe I'll still do so now, or do you care to actually provide that OTRS confirmation? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)"<br/> 
This is not the person who should be coming here now and indef blocking an account with over a decade on this site with over 10,000 edits as F.P. has been heavily involved with edits I've made in the past, and has expressed anger and a desire to see my account blocked.<br/>
As to the concentration camp image he located on the Internet, I found it in my archives of photos from World War II research labeled as a photo from a trip I took over a thirteen years ago.  It has circulated since then I am sure, as it is a picture of a pretty famous historical site.  The second image, that of the old St. Louis Amory, was easily photographed from the highway when the building still stood.  The fact that it would be on several different websites is not surprising at all.  I also was involved in the taking of pictures of this building at the time, through my employer, which I can easily prove.<br/>
As to being a "serial copyright violator", I've had no other problems or warnings in quite some time, I think for several years.  This is not an appropriate block, and I ask it be removed. -[[User:OberRanks|O.R.]]<sup>[[User talk:OberRanks|''Comms'']]</sup> 21:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

FWIW ArbCom issued OberRanks a copyright warning in 2007. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 11 years ago. -O.R.^Comms 22:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given O.R.'s history, I would very much advise against believing anything he says. He's a known, habitual liar. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying The Guardian has misappropriated your work? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before an unblock is considered we need an explanation for the Guardian photo. It is not credible that you are implying The Guardian is falsely asserting one of their correspondents took the photo for a 2016 story and that you really took the picture in 2005 and never published it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Hello Neill, I just sent you a lengthy e-mail which I could not post on Wikipedia because of real world info about myself and my employer. I tried to explain everything as best I could. I hope this may be resolved. Thank you. -O.R.^Comms 23:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please copy me on that, Neil and I can compare notes. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: I did so. Also, if it helps, I'll happily take a several months or even years ban on uploading images in the event I made a mistake here. -O.R.^Comms 23:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the original of the St. Louis photo in its original resolution? Your upload is obviously a cropped and zoomed version of this but the original obviously must be in higher resolution. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On PDF file at work, yes, from the material that was published about it. I had cropped the PDF to get the photo used here. The original from 2002, which I took with my own camera, was over 16 years ago so no I don't have that one anymore. I also think there is a possibility the website located actually used the photo material from our article, as it was distributed pretty widely in the St. Louis area. I hope that helps. -O.R.^Comms 23:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: - I sent you everything I have on the images as well as confirmation from my professional account. I hope that is helpful. -O.R.^Comms 00:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting on Guy's input via email. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Thank you. Please let me know if there is anything else you need from me. I've provided most everything I have about those pictures. -O.R.^Comms 14:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gmail is diligently hiding it from me :-( Guy (Help!) 07:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: , do you need me to resend you anything? -O.R.^Comms 12:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]