User talk:Husnock/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

ARCHIVE OF User talk:Husnock

Master Commandant

Are you sure that Master Commandant was replaced by Lieutenant Commander, not Commander. -- Geo Swan 23:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Yep, pretty sure. Ive read it in a few places. That whole article could use expansion to include sources and references. -Husnock 23:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
This page and this page say that the rank of Master Commandant was renamed Commander in 1837 or 1838. This would parallel the evolution of ranks in the Royal Navy (where Master and Commander became simply Commander). The Lieutenant Commander was originally a lieutenant commanding or lieutenant commandant, a substantive lieutenant with command of a vessel. The position was rewarded first with higher pay, then uniform distinctions, and finally recognised as a separate, higher rank during the Civil War (see here and here). In both cases, one of the sources is an official U.S. Navy site. — Franey 08:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
That all sounds fine to me. I suggest an expansion and update of the article. -Husnock 16:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Category renames

Renaming a category doesn't create any redirect problems at all. All the articles are automatically redirected by a bot. We rename categories with hundreds of articles all the time. Please reconsider your vote. CalJW 01:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I suppose if bots are doing it, that would be okay. I just wonder if its really worth all the effort. -Husnock 14:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding categories, you might want to do some research before accusing contributor 155 of vandalism by adding the scottish american tags. Could it be that your pride was just hurt from his corrections to your Legion of Merit text? CantStandYa 13:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It appeared to me an anon user was adding the category in question everyone in Wikipedia that had a Scottish name. An admin actually agreed with me on the notice page. The IP address in question has also been a known vandal in the past. As far as Legion of Merit...didnt even realize that IP had edited the article and I dont stoop to such low levels of revenge. -Husnock 14:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you should withdraw your charge of vandalism, since this clearly wasn't the case. These citations have all been sourced. It would go a long way toward clearing this up. This would be consistent with your character as an officer and a gentleman. CantStandYa 15:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC) (Lt Col)

BTW - the IP in question is a networked Army system with thousands of users. Most are responsible users, a few are not. Please do not condemn the responsible users for the past acts of a few. Most of the scoundrels are gone now.

I think the vandal log is just a record of complaints and is not cleared or withdrawn or voted on, like a VFD. Its also a day by day log which is hard to go back into after some time has passed. I'm sure if its a big issue, a line could be added in by any concerned party stating it to be a public IP address. Its also not really an accusation page, more like a person has noticed something that appears to be vandalism. Its looked at by admins and, if warranted, they can take further action and also add notes if its a misunderstanding. Its not meant to be taken personally. Ive been listed there once or twice over misunderstandings. -Husnock 16:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Croix de Guerre

comments as proposed deleted thank you for you interest
also good luck with becoming admin Gnangarra 17:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User du-0

Template:User du-0 is up for deletion; as you voted to delete its category, I thought you might like to vote on this (the cat vote was closed and will hinge on the template vote). Vote here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:User_du-0. — Davenbelle 03:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Colonel (Canada)

Why split off two sentences when they'd do just fine in the main Colonel article. There's much more on the UK and USA versions of the rank in the main article, yet they don't get their own pages. — ceejayoz talk Flag of Australia.svg 21:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I just listified the entire Colonel article, you just saw one part of the project. General is the same way. -Husnock 21:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Images on WP:CP

Hi. A website owner claims that a number of images you uploaded are a copyright violation from their site. Please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2005 November 4. I'm simply reporting the claim and do not currently have any opinion either way at the time of posting. RedWolf 23:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I answered the accusation. I am highly suspicious as the user in question is a red link with no previous edits. The first action seems to be to accuse of copyright violation. In any event, since all of those pictures were obtained from NPRC, and not through someone else's website, I dont see there should be any problem. -Husnock 23:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the response on WP:CP. I'm also suspicious of the claims by the user. Therefore, I have copied the nominations and your response to the user's talk page and have removed the entries from WP:CP. RedWolf 02:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


Your picture (Image:SSLTCOL) of an Obersturmbannführer is very low contrast: is there a particular reason the contrast is so low, or should I improve it? --대조 | Talk 17:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I assume you mean Image:SSLTCpatch.gif. It was taken from a databse of images at the National Archives and Records Administration in College Park, Maryland. I think thats the best it can get with the source. It looks okay to me; I see no need to redo the image. -Husnock 20:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed the file extension. No, I meant Image:SSLTCOL.jpg, which is low contrast. --대조 | Talk 18:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Ohhh...thats a scan I made of an original photograph. Ive also seen the same picture in a textbook somewhere. Copyright is not an issue, it can be enhanced so long as the original source is cited as NARA. -Husnock 18:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


I deleted your addition to pheasant because it does not apply to all pheasants, the subject of the family page - the subject of the Dahl book, and of most poaching is the Common Pheasant. jimfbleak 06:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC) why didn't you just move the info instead of deleting it? Deleting something from an article is usually the case when another editor claims the information is incorrect or untrue. The statement that pheasants are the target of poachers and that the Dahl book was a fictionial account of this can hardly becalled untrue. I will go back and move the info to the proper page since you saw fit to completely delete the information rather than place it on a more fitting page. -Husnock 07:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


Hi Husnok, I wrote you a mail via the wikimedia e-mail feature about the named image. Did you get it? --Avatar-en 18:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

No I did not. I am actually unaware of that feature. -Husnock 18:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah, well. You registered with an email address and so anybody can click on 'E-mail this user'-link in the toolbox at you user-page. Perhaps you changed mail-adresses. Then I'll write it here: Can you please help clear up the following situation: The german publisher ZAHLENBILDER/Erich Schmidt Verlag claims that Image:NSDAPChart.jpg is copyrighted work created by them for the book "Drei Jahrzehnte deutscher Geschichte. 1918-1948", Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin 1961. Besides this copyright claim they also note that the graphic is not the actual state of research. They were irritated that it is flagged as PD-USGov-NARA. Perhaps you can remember and name the source (URL?). Otherwise we should remove it. --Avatar-en 11:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Its a scan of one of several documents at the National Archives and Records Administration at College Park, Maryland. It also appears in several textbooks by both German and American publishers. The NARA version is avaialble through the "Berlin Documents Center" collection in College Park. I, persoanlly obtained the image (hardcopy) in 1993. I thinks its actually an original chart of the Nazi Party, created in the 30s. Sorry the publisher got upset; I dont think its a valid copyright claim on thier part. Hope that helps! -Husnock 13:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Missouri battle stars

An interesting question from User:TomStar81, doesn't seem like there is an obvious way to answer online - any ideas?

"I was rereading the USS Missouri (BB-63) article and got to the part about the battle stars the ship earned: Three for service in WWII and five for service in Korea. Then it occured to me that Missouri also participated in the First Gulf War. Shouldn't she have gotten a battle star for that?"

Your user page is very spiffy BTW, haven't seen it in a while! Stan 00:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the kind comments! Yes, the Missouri would absolutly have battle stars from the Gulf War. I believe I read somewhere it was granted three. I'm sure its out there somewhere...just have to find it. -Husnock 04:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
On a related note, USS Wisconsin (BB-64) should also have battlestars for her service in the Gulf War, yet here the only recognition of her Gulf War service is a Navy Unit Commendation. TomStar81 02:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Heinrich Himmler Suicide Issue

In your Wikingpedia profile it states that you are in favor of freedom of speech but then you paradoxically block any further additions of material to the section on Heinrich Himmler's death. The apparent reasons you advance for the censorship is that you 'feel' without having actually read the new book which documents Himmler's assassination at the hands of his captors, that it constitutes a 'conspiracy theory' simply because prior historians neglected to undertake an exhaustive investigation into the circumstances of his death but still upheld the 'official version' dating from 1945. I have read the book under discussion and can affirm that the author meticulously investigated each and every detail in this fascinating drama. Thus your decision puzzles me. Why, for example, did you removed the statement which posted the exact particulars concerning the extensive footnotes and documents which the book contains? Work such as this is the not the product of a dilettante. Don't you think it would be better to read the book and examine its exhaustive list of primary documents newly released from the British and American archives before jumping to the rash conclusion that the book is based on a conspiracy theory rather than documentary proof? In all fairness, if you have not read the book, how can you make this blanket statement? The book is scholarly and scrupulously non-partisan. As an aside, I only need note that military historians like Mr. Keegan, whose talents I am in no way seeking to diminish, did not rely on the newly released documents cited by the author of this book. Hence, they would have an incomplete picture of the whole documentary record. Nor have you provided proof that they have in fact read his book or specifically commented upon it. Finally, you stated that the author relied on the recent documents supposedly uncovered at the Public Records Office in London which were later declared to be forgeries. In fact, the author does not rely on those documents at all. Moreover, the issue of whether they truly 'are' forgeries is still open to dispute, because the PRO conducted an internal investigation and turned over the results to Scotland Yard almost two months ago, and still no one has been identified or charged as being the 'forger.' In the opinion of many, 'that' constitutes a viable conspiracy theory, and certainly many historians are still waiting, [perhaps vainly] for the culprit to be identified, arrested and charged. I respectfully suggest that you first read the book in question before criticizing it or locking the article down for editing. Just because a book is newly published does not negate its premise in the least! Recall how Mark Fuhrman's investigation led to an arrest and conviction in a crime which was decades old. - User:Booster2

  • To answer I will give some major points 1) Having the book mentioned in the article is not the problem (I am all for having all available theories mentioned about his death). The problem is the breaking of Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View. Saying that the book is well verified and accepted by all World War II historians simply isn't true. Saying that is a "compelling book" is a point of view. 2) I did not lock the article. I brought the matter to the attention of admins of the site and at least 4 other people say the posts to the article as inappropriate and POV. I actually do not have the ability to lock articles. 3) No attempt was ever made by yourself or others to discuss the matter on the Himmler talk page. The inserts were simple put back in the article over and over again. This is against the basic concept of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. 4)Sorry you got your feelings hurt. Work with the system and not against it. When the article gets unlocked, discuss the matter with other editors and try and reach a concensus. -Husnock 18:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

That is a fair enough assessment, I think, but I take issue with only one comment you made above which I think is inaccurate and perhaps due to a misunderstanding. The inserted comments never claimed that the book has been 'well verified and accepted by all World War II historians.' Hoping that you will give me the benefit of the doubt for a moment, if memory serves correctly, the insert stated that it 'should become accepted once the historians had the opportunity to read it and examine the source material and documentation.' I would not have made a blanket statment such as is apparently ascribed to me at the moment, simply because the book has only been out for a few months now and is only available in the German language. Additionally, I think the book's premise is being confused with the book authored by Marin Allen, who is under suspicion of having planted the alleged forged documents in the PRO, according to an article published in the Guardian, in Great Britain. Mr. Bellinger's book did not need to rely on those documents but left the matter open until such time as it could be conclusively proved that the documents were in fact forged. In order for that to happen, an individual must first be identified and charged and convicted as the culprit. So this issue of forgeries is still far from being decided. You are correct in that I did not defer the matter to the talk: Himmler page. Perhaps I should do so? By the way, I fully agree with the remainder of your statements and suggestions. Thanks.

John J. Pershing

Could you take a look at one section of your expansion of article John J. Pershing, that of your edit [Revision as of 01:08, 13 July 2005] in section Spanish_and_Philippine-American_Wars (second paragraph).

I think there are a couple missing words from "... which oversaw occupation forces gained in the Spanish-American War ...". Perhaps it should be something like "... which oversaw occupation forces in possessions gained in the Spanish-American War ..." Shenme 03:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Tights Picture

Image:3GirlsTights.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. -Nv8200p talk 17:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page and on the nomination page. The pic is a duplicate and should be deleted. -Husnock 17:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Since it is redundant, I can speedy delete -Thanks Nv8200p talk 17:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

History of the Catholic Church

Husnock, if you check Eastern Catholic Church, you'll find most Eastern Catholics objecting to the name of their church being the "Roman Catholic Church" i.e. please see Maronite Catholic Church, Ruthenian Catholic Church, etc. These Eastern Christians are united with the Pope of Rome but aren't "Roman" Catholic. Additionally, indulgences have never been sold. They have been attached to money in the past, however, Catholics have always believed that giving to the Church to be a good thing. You could never gain an indulgence merely by paying for it. Please cite your justification for reverting the article back to History of the Roman Catholic Church. P.S. Some interesting sites you should check out concerning our Eastern Rites:, & for starters. Rchamberlain 06:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Thats a deep subject that has been going on for a long time. In a nutshell, the article in question is about the history of the church from the Roman Catholic standpoint, so I feel it should maintain that name. But, I am not entirely opposed to changing it. However, removal of the word "Roman" from Catholic articles has been the subject of numerous debates and I think even a naming convention. It is also viewed as vandalism, in some cases (what you did, though, was clearly NOT vandalism). In any event, I've always felt that since the main article on Roman Catholic Church contains the word Roman so too should the history article. But, I appreciate the viewpoint here. I would recommend starting a talk page discussion. There's merit on both sides. -Husnock 20:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, as a Maronite Catholic myself, I'm glad that the name of my Church was able to be decided by a naming convention of non-Catholics. I think it needs to be changed, because it's factually incorrect. The only "Roman" Catholic technically would be in the Archdiocese of Rome. Every other Church which has a valid bishop in Apostolic Succession is a particular Church whether they are Catholic or Orthodox. It would be more technically correct to call a so-called "Roman" Catholic outside the Archdiocese of Rome a Latin rite Catholic. The CC has only referred to itself as the RCC when in ecumenical discussions with other groups, but on official documents the words Roman Catholic Church have never appeared. Romish was appended to my brothers' rites during the split with the Anglicans who still considered themselves catholics and wanted to insult the so-called papists. Have a Merry Christmas. Rchamberlain 01:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Certificate of Merit

Since you had a hand in the "Certificates of Merit" article I thought you might be able to shed some light on my current dilemma.

According to Who was in America the Certificate of Merit was issued to Holbrook Mann MacNeille in 1948 by President Truman for work done in the Office of Scientific Research and Development. The article on the Certificate of Merit says that it was discontinued in 1918. I am not sure if the article on the Certificate of Merit or Who was in America is incorrect, or if these are different Certificates of Merit.

There are various scant articles on Certificates of Merit on the web from the Truman Library and government archives. for example:

130.3.6 Records of the Medal for Merit Boards

Textual Records: Case files of approved awards for the Medal for Merit, 1942-48; and the Certificate of Merit, 1946-48, and of awards withdrawn or refused, 1945-48. Name index to persons given awards, 1942-48. Correspondence and related records concerning the awards and the boards, 1942-48. [1]

If you have any ideas please let me know.

--Prmacn 23:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

  • That doesnt sound like it was the military Certificate of Merit, probably some kind of civilian equivalent. The military CoMs went out of business before the turn of the 20th century and later became the Certificate of Merit Medal. I know very little about both the medal or the original certificates; just what Ive read. -Husnock 23:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently Truman gave it to several civilian categories including scientists who contributed to the Manhattan Project and related projects. I gather from your comments that it is unlikely that military awards would be conferred to civilians and visa-versa. I'll check with the Truman Library to see if they have any information. Thanks!

--Prmacn 01:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Soviet military ranks

Where did you get from the Soviet military insignias? Please dont delete this message.--Nixer 23:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what insignias you are talking about. As for deleting messages from a talk page, the user who runs the talk page has the right to edit or delete anything on it that they choose. -Husnock 23:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I mean this: [2]. Did you created the picture yourself? Why not to create a table of Sovied military ranks?--Nixer 04:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
That was obtained from the United States Army. They have many pictures and graphics of old Soviet military badges left over from the Cold War intel days. -Husnock 05:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


It's cool to see an editor on the Wikipedia who is also a member of the military. How do you deal with the rampant liberal POV that permeates articles, though? I sometimes wonder if my contributions are in vain. JG of Borg 17:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I've seen many battles on Wikipedia. In the end, good sense and fair articles seem to prevail. Some people thrive on conflict, though, hence rampant POV and disruptive users. -Husnock 00:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Web-screenshot tag

I've noticed you've uploaded some images tagged with {{web-screenshot}}. This tag is not meant to be used for images that came from Web pages; it's meant to be used for images of Web pages (such as Image:Wikipedia.PNG, for example). I've retagged the images below as having no license information. Please edit the image description pages to include information about the licenses these images are under. —Bkell 18:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Image:FrenchGeneral.gif
    • Thats an interesting description of the screenshot tag. I could debate it, but in this case it's not even in the picture (no pun intended) since there is a new tag to describe military badges. I've updated the image. -Husnock 00:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's another: Image:MIDN.jpg also Image:Macarthurcap.jpg. Could you please add source information for Image:Macarthurcap.jpg? Which company is it? -Bkell 21:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Taken care of. -Husnock 22:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi, Husnock, as I saw on your user-page you can speak German fluently. Since my English may not be so good, I beg leave to write in German. Of course you may answer - if you like - in English.

Es geht um die Einführungs-Flagge im Artikel "Hitler Youth". Mir ist nicht ganz klar, woher die Meinung stammt, der weiße Streifen sei deutlich schmaler als die roten. Alle mir zur Verfügung stehenden historischen Fotos zeigen eindeutig, dass die drei Streifen gleich breit waren. Ein Fachmann auf diesem Gebiet, Brian L. Davis, gibt in seinem Buch "Flags of the Third Reich, Band 3: Party & Police Units", die genauen Spezifikationen der HJ-Flagge an. Er erwähnt dabei ausdrücklich die gleiche Breite der drei Streifen. Ferner war das Hakenkreuz deutlich größer - wie in meinem Abschnitt über die Flaggen dargestellt - als auf der "Introduction flag" gezeigt. Ich kann mir vorstellen, dass dieser Irrtum auf der Darstellung von "wehenden" Flaggen beruht, bei denen dieser Effekt auf einer optischen Täuschung beruht. Auf der Internetseite von "Flags of the world" ist die Verwirrung sogar komplett: Hier wird die Flagge mit drei gleich breiten Streifen abgebildet, im Text wird jedoch auf "einen etwas schmaleren weißen Streifen hingewiesen". Quellenangaben fehlen jedoch.

Auf Grund des bisher gesagten, wäre ich Dir dankbar, wenn Du Deine "Quellen" , insbesondere historische Fotos, benennst, in denen die Flagge mit ungleich breiten Streifen dargestellt ist. Greetings,--Gomeira 09:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I think I get the idea of what you are saying. That there was no main flag? Aber, in dem Hauptquartier von Baldur von Shirach, ich habe Photographieren sehen uber ein HJ Bahne das war der "Uber Flagge" von der ganze Hitlerjunge. Ich glaube das diese Bahne war der ein Flag fur alle HJ Personen uber alle Deutschland. Aber, ja. Die Stadt und Gefolksschaft Hitlerjunge kompanie hatte auch ein anderen Flagge. Hopefully, my German was okay...I dont get to practice it that much. Mit freundliche Grussen -Husnock 18:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Hi, Husnock, thank you for the answer. First let me say, that your German ist not "too bad" considering the fact that you don' t practise it very much. But let me try to clarify my point in English. You say, that there was a kind of "main flag" hanging in the head quarters of Baldur von Schirach. It might be that there was such a flag without a badge. But the main question is, whether this flag displayed the three stripes not equally wide ! That would be a great surprise to me and I would like to see this photo. I challenge the assertion that there existed a flag with the white stripe narrower than the red ones, as shown in the article Hitler Youth as a kind of "introduction flag". So this flag is a wrong adaptation of the arm band, that the HJ wore. If you have any proof of flags with narrower white stripes, please let me have a look at them, otherwise the "introduction flag" should be changed into the correct version with three equally wide stripes. Greetings,--Gomeira 17:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Das ist wichtig. Der Personen das hat der erste Flagge machen war ZScout370. Sie sollen zu ihm sprechen. Mit freundlichen grussen. -Husnock 16:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Admin Nomination

My dear Husnock, I must say that I'm deeply impressed with both the quality and the quantity of your contributions. It is because of this that I'm also shocked that you have not yet assumed a position as admin, considering that your experience surpasses that of virtually all potential candidates by far. I see that you were offered a nomination at least once, back in September, but for some reason such nomination didn't take effect. It would be both a privilege and a pleasure to me if you allow me to nominate you. Just let me know, and I'll arrange it immediately. All the best, Phædriel *whistle* 14:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the very kind words! I would be happy to step up and be an ADmin if thats what the Wiki Users want. I've mature don this site over the years but have fought some vicious battles in the past. My main hang-up is mean or hostile people that attack other users and say bad things about thier articles. My only other concern is that I might get deployed in the War on Terrorism, leaving my account inactive for over a year. I'll be back eventually, though. So, thanks again, and I would be hapy to see how a nomination goes. -Husnock 16:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • My dear Husnock, I'm delighted to see that you've accepted my offer and feel you're ready to go. I'm eager to post it at WP:RfA, so as soon as you answer the questions at your Nomination page, just let me know. Let's rock on, soldier! ;-) Cheers, Phædriel *whistle* 00:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I answered the questions just this morning. Hope it works out. Thanks for your very kind words. -Husnock 18:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Awesome! Now let's just sit back and hear the community speak. Cheers! Phædriel *whistle* 18:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Hello and good luck. There are a few another questions waiting for you to answer. - Darwinek 15:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

VA Tech

Hello, I wrote the so-called "Wikipedia Hate Page" which you list on your user page (shhh, don't tell anyone) -- anyways, I'm working on my masters in history and would like to focus on military history, or history of technology... so, I was wondering if perhaps you would care to convey your impression of Virginia Tech, as at some point I will undoubtedly want to transfer somewhere for a PhD. My email is:

I had a very good time there. It has a great history department. I would take to Dr. Schutz or Dr. Walenstein about places to transfer for a PhD. If Drs. Nurse and Oschenwald are still there, they would be good people to talk to as well. Whatever you do, stay away from Dr. Robertson! He hates students. About hating, BTW, I will change the link to "Criticism Page". Hate is a strong word. I actually posted it so people could see the other side of the opinions about Wikipedia. Its free world and everyone has the right to choose. -Husnock 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Fiction regarding United States presidential succession

Hi, I reinstated the edit that you reverted on the above article. Please see the Talk:Fiction regarding United States presidential succession for my reasons. If you disagree, let's discuss it. TH 23:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I gave a good answer to your concerns. Its a good edit, but simply doesnt belong on that particular article as being off topic. -Husnock 23:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


I took the liberty of relocating your table of contents in order to draw attention to your rules and seperate them more from the actual topics. The __TOC__ symbol is placed where you want the table of contents to be moved to, or it can be eliminated altogehter by using __NOTOC__. - Pureblade | Θ 01:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Interesting feature. Thanks. -Husnock 16:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Civil War Corps Badges

Union Army 2nd Division Badge, II Corps, Army of the Potomac

Would you be interested in working together on the creation of and article titled, "Civil War Corps Badges?"

Here are some links that show other websites that feature similar information.

And finally, from the Park Service ...

evrik 19:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That sounds like a good project. My knowledge is extremely limited, however. In the film Gettysburg, Colonel Chamberlain and his brother appear to be wearing some kind of red iron cross. Any idea what that was? -Husnock 17:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm concerend about the imagery and the copyright issues. I have yet to find a public domain source for the images. I don't know if I know enough to write the text.evrik 17:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Military insignia and badges are usually not copyrighted. There is an image tag available for just such images. -Husnock 17:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at this site in German. I think is has a lot of what i would like to see. How dow ee incorporate that?evrik 17:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I have been slowly adding images to the page, and I created some text. Feel free to flesh out the page!evrik 18:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Authoritative References

Being a military historian who is in the military (I'm assuming it's your MOS as well), I was hoping you could point me references for what circumstances the various aviators wings were awarded during World War II. For example, liaison pilots were generally enlisted men who had washed out of flight training for larger aircraft, but had still soloed. Detailed information such as how many hours were needed, how long the badge was actively awarded, etc. would also be a great find. Thanks. McNeight 03:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


Congratulations on your new mop! :) Sango123 (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 16:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:VietCiv2.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:VietCiv2.gif. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. Thank you. Admrboltz (T)

Take care of -Husnock 18:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Comparative military ranks of World War II

Husnock-Stop revert my edits. You write not correct and not exact data! If you do not know Russian and German language-it your problem. The Soviet military ranks of the period of the second world war and their equivalence are written on many sites and in many books, especially in Russian. To not trust them at me there is no reason! German ranks SS and their equivalence are written on many sites and in many books including in German. According to them-Der Oberster Reichsführer der Schutzstaffel it's a the highest title and a rank in SS. This rank had no special uniform, because had it only Hitler. To challenge them silly! Tt1 14:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I have studied the Second World War for almost 20 years and half of the ranks you are mentioning are not referenced in any source that I have ever seen. In accordence with Wikipedia policy, disputed edits will be removed until valid sources are provided. If you continue this edit warring,w hich you have apparently embarked on several different articles, it will only lead to the articles being protected. -Husnock 15:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with you about Double Columns on Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS, but about Der Oberster Reichsführer der Schutzstaffel you are wrong! Even who studies 100 years - the person can to be mistaken. -Tt1 18Jan06
      • Please give a valid source for Oberster Reichsführer der Schutzstaffel. I highly dispute its existance and have never seen it in a World War II text or even from original documents from teh Second World War. -Husnock 16:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

About it it is written in the Big Soviet and Russian encyclopedia and those who wrote it (professors, academicians, doctors of sciences) - they too have higher education people and studied not one year. I do not think that all of them less know than you! Yeremeyev which has written a site - the anatomy of Army has a rank of the general and higher education. He studied history about WORLD RANK and INSIGNIA for almost 30 years! You write that I write many not existing ranks but if to look debatable page that we argue now only about two ranks:Der Oberster Reichsführer der Schutzstaffel and Komandor/Kommandore. Other ranks I did not change at present, except for Soviet ranks (with Russian sites and books not knowing Russian about them you and others cannot disputes)! -Tt1 16:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not disputing any Russian ranks. I am disputing Oberster Reichsführer der Schutzstaffel. The fact that this rank appears in one Russian book is far from convincing. I have never seen the rank mentioned in any text on WWII that I hae ever read NOR does it appear in original German documents from the SS. To compormise, though, Hitler was SS Member #1 and that should be mentioned somewhere. But, as far as this rank goes, it is disputed and I can't see anywhere a valid source can be provided. Keep it out fo teh article, okay? Its already on the talkpage. This can be worked out there.

You can see many sites in English and in German SS-Rank Table showing equivalents in the German, American and British Armies, Der oberste Führer. der Schutzstaffel,SS -Tt1 16:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • How about the name and ISBN number of an actual textbook or a German document from the Second World War? A personal webpage doesn't cut it. In any event, I plan to open up a new section in the article about senior SS titles and what (if any) Hitler held. I'm done editing for this morning, but will return to this later. There was such rank as far as I can tell. Its not listed in any textbook Ive ever read about the Second World War nor are there any German documents to support that such a title was ever held or used by Adolf Hitler. Back off from this for now. You simply aren't going to get this to stick. -Husnock 17:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I AM NOT Tt1 - IT IS WRONG! Roitr 19:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Tt1/Roitr blocks

You can find these at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Regards (and congratulations on your adminship), howcheng {chat} 18:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware of this as well, but if someone has two blocks applied to them for different lengths of time, the shorter one takes precedence. So I undid your block of Roitr and reapplied the indefinite block. FYI, you probably shouldn't block anyone in any edit disputes you are engaged in, as that might seem like you're abusing your admin status (IMHO, but I'm a new admin too, so what do I know?). Also, posting these on WP:AN/I is probably the best place to get help. I've left a little notice about this there. Regards, howcheng {chat} 19:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your great advice. It was an absolute learning experiance for me. -Husnock 20:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I've upgraded the two pages to full protection. I also went and blocked Roitr again for 48 hrs this time. howcheng {chat} 23:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Comparative military ranks

Hi! Why do you support the wrong version of the article?--Nixer 05:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

What "wrong version" are you refering to? The version of Comparative military ranks of World War II that has been opposed is the one where a user has made up several non-existent ranks and then started an edit war when the changes were reverted. When blocked for violation of the Three Revert Rule, the user created sockpuppet accounts to circumvent the block and continued adding highly disputed data. This lead to both this article and the one on SS ranks being protected. -Husnock 01:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
OK I have other issues such as Soviet Marshal ranks and placing Reichsfuerer-SS to the proper place.--Nixer 09:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Flag images question

I noticed on WP:AN/I that you had some problems with Gmaxwell and the deletion of flag images from your userpage: here is what happened. A long time ago, there was a template that was used for flags called {{PD-flag}} and all flag images were tagged liked that, regardless of where they came from. It was like that for a while until I showed up on WP. Since I joined, I created a few other flag-image templates to declare which image came from where, such as the world flag database or flags of the world. And, also, in that time period, I moved {{PD-flag}} to {{flagimage}} becauase while some of the flag images came from the CIA, most were just taken from websites that do not allow for commercial use or they used flags that were not theirs to own. While the new template says that the flags are fair use, in reality, some of the flags are copyvios. So that is why he was taking out flag images. While this is partially my fault for the template moving around stuff, but that is how some of the flag images went from PD to fair use, and thus, a target in Gmaxwell's crusade against fair use images. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 14:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you think?

What do you think about this version: [3]? --Nixer 11:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe a supreme SS rank held by Hitler should be on that page for reasons already given. Also, I am swaying towards the fact that Reichsfuhrer was more equal to Reichsmarshall rather than Field Marshal. And, last but not least, the nasty exchanges on the talk pages need to cool down a bit before the article gets unprotected. -Husnock 14:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay. We can delete the supreme SS title of Hitler. Reichsfuerer-SS was equal to Generalfieldmarschall. For example here is the source:[4]. Thank you for the proper corerrection in Ranks and insignia of the Schutzstaffel article.

Current update

Please check the current update: [[5]]. What do you think about placing Soviet political staff ranks here?--Nixer 16:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


Stop hand.png

Whats the template location for your anon ip user message at the top of the screen. Is there a list of such talk page templates that I may explore. Thank you! -Husnock 20:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact there is. If you review Template talk:Test you will find a matrix which lists a number of frequently used test-message templates with brief descriptions of how to use them. Best regards, Hall Monitor 20:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Profesional Opinion

On 31 December 2005 an edit war broke out on the page Iowa class battleship. The argument is centered on the inclusion (or lack there of) of this line:

When commissioned, it was believed that their only serious competition would be the British battleship HMS Vanguard, the two Japanese Yamato-class battleships, and the five battleships of the Montana-class, which had been authorized but not laid down (they would be cancelled before construction).

MateoP maintains that this line is a violation of Wikipedia’s NPOV policy, and demands that a profesional authority be quoted for this line. TestPilot and I maintain that this line is not in violation of the NPOV policy because this compares the Iowa’s to there likely opponents. As a member of the United States Navy I would say that you are qualified to render an expert opinion, so could you chip in your two-cents on the matter? TomStar81 00:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)