User talk:Diremarc

This user may have left Wikipedia. Diremarc has not edited Wikipedia since July 2010. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome!

Hello, Diremarc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!  Mercy (☎|✍) 21:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, mate. I came across your request for help regarding a template you created — Template:Comparative military ranks. It looks great, by the way. You mention that you were trying to add it to another page — Template:Military ranks and that it has been reverted. I've had a look at the second page and I think I can see what the problem is. The second page is also a template, but it is a template comparing generic military ranks for most of the countries of the world. Your template is just for the United States. Hence, it is probably not correct to try to add it to the other template. The two can exist separately and editors can choose which is more appropriate given the type of article they are adding it too. Yours is fine the way it is, but you can add it to individual articles, rather than other templates. I see that it has already been added to the bottom of United States armed forces. You might consider trying to have it appear in collapsed form (so it doesn't take up too much space), but don't ask me how, because I'm not a template guru. I've only done one before and it was mainly a copy and paste job of another one. Sorry I couldn't be of more help, but I hope that this clears up the problem. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks[edit]

i appreciate your comments. i am working on improving the template, adding warrent ranks, adding services, correcting errors, etc. hopefully, at the end, the template will be found to be useful.diremarc (talk) 04:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I definately admire that you are taking the time out of your life to create constructive comparison of military ranks. I do notice that there are a couple inaccuracies in the ranks though. Let's take 'Admiral CNO for example. Admiral CNO should be changed to Admiral. While the Chief of Naval Operations is by law the highest ranking officer in the United States Navy he is not the only officer in the Navy that holds the rank of admiral. There are currently 10 active duty four-star admirals in the United States Navy; one of which, by law, even outtranks the CNO and none of which, by law, the CNO has operational control over. The "Chief of Naval Operations" is a position and title and not a rank. For example, the Vice Chief of Naval Operations is also by law a four-star admiral. The Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet is designated as a four-star admiral position and so on. On the other hand, the Commandant of the Coast Guard is currently the only position the merits a four-star grade in the United States Coast Guard so you can leave it there, however I would recommand removind it to avoid confusion.

This also applies to the General CSAF. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force is also not the only four-star general in the United States Air Force; there are 13 (soon to be 14).

To get a better understanding, please read List of active duty United States four-star officers. You might find it to be quite helpful. Also, if you have the chance, read 10 U.S.C. §  and 37 U.S.C. § 201 of the U.S. Code of law to get the correct spelling of ranks. For example, rear admiral (upper half) is actually just rear admiral.

Adding warrant officer ranks to the page would be beneficial just for the meer fact that they are military ranks. If you have any questions about the seven Uniformed services of the United States, feel free to ask and I'll try to answer them to the best of my knowledge. Neovu79 (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the newly finished template waits for comments (and not just my own). diremarc (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You added material specific to Alderney to the Channel islands article - it's all excellent stuff, but we don't need it repeated in Alderney (where it certainly should be) and Occupation of the Channel Islands (where it also certainly should be) and in the Channel Islands article (where the focus on Alderney IMO led to a lack of balance). Thank you for taking the trouble to add all this excellent info, but I think, if you don't mind I'll ignore the accusation of censorship as I know how easy it is to get a bit worked up when you've put a lot of work in. Mèrcie bein des fais! Man vyi (talk) 08:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And while I think about it, would you be able to cast your eye over the relevant sections of Guernsey and History of Jersey and, if appropriate, add some more of your WWII material there? Mèrcie bein des fais! Man vyi (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve just found your comments on the content of this page; I've replied on the talk page there.
But, I think it’s a bit cheeky to leave a template warning, as if you are an admin or something; particularly the sandbox comment, like you were talking to someone who’s only been editing a few months. If you disagree with something, just say so, and discuss it reasonably; there's no need to come over heavy. Moonraker12 (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply; I’m glad we can be civilized about things. Moonraker12 (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this template contains references (which I fixed BTW), it can not be used in articles after the references section. I have no sloution, but consider asking for advice somewhere. Debresser (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The good thing about {{Templaterefsection}} is that it shows you where the references are broken or in need of attention. Debresser (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i noticed you changed the catagory of the above to Category:Nazi concentration camps on Alderney. upon reflection, this is an improvment. however, should not the new category list:

• Nazi-German concentration camps list
• Neuengamme concentration camp
• Neuengamme concentration camp subcamps list

i noticed that the neuengamme link is in the opening paragraph, but is that sufficient? thank you for your time and help. --diremarc (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus has been reached at Talk:Fleet Admiral (United States)#Move? that it should not do so. Please do not retarget the redirect Fleet Admiral again, against consensus. If you wish to retarget the redirect Fleet Admiral, please wait a reasonable period (say one month, though usually more like 3 months) and then attempt to achieve consensus on a retarget by filing a retarget request at WP:RFD. Consensual decisions and not unilateral decisions are how Wikipedia decides what things should be. As a consensus has been reached through the WP:RM discussion at US Fleet Admiral, your retarget was improper. 70.29.210.130 (talk) 12:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve replied at CI. It looks OK; nice work!
BTW I’ve left notes at ACC and Alderney; do you have any thoughts? Moonraker12 (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page could do with being expanded. It’s little more than a “See also” section at present, which makes it a candidate for deletion/merger. Can I suggest where there are a series of pages on the same subject, they should be in layers of depth. A general page needs just a summary and a link; this needs maybe an overview of the camp structure and its effect; the pages on individual camps should have information specific to them. A lot of the information on this subject at Occupation of the Channel Islands and Alderney would fit here, but to avoid vain repetition (and, again, deletion) the subject should be expanded, here, or summarized, there. Any thoughts? Moonraker12 (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

PS I’ve left a note on the Alderney talk page here; can anyone comment? Moonraker12 (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alderney_concentration_camps"

War crimes I'm not entirely happy about this section. I know it isn't meant to, but listing all the defendants makes it look like a roll of honour/memorial; particularly as the airmen they killed aren't named. A summary "Fifteen men were tried for the crime, and two sentenced to death." would cover it. And what about the men guarding the camps, (arguably a much bigger crime). Did they get away with it? That also needs mentioning. Moonraker12 (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alderney"

i am talking to myself.-- diremarc _(talk) 19:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  ciao~diremarc (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• --ciao - diremarc (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I think you have misunderstood the point of my edit, which was not in any way intended to be disrespectful to or dismissive of Conservative and Reform Jews. My point was simply this.

In Jewish law, in the form accepted by the Orthodox, there is a definite status of meshumad: non-observance can have the effect of disqualifying a person from certain ritual privileges. In the non-Orthodox denominations, it is of course true that some individuals are more observant than others. But this is a matter of degree, and there is no stigma or penalty attached to those who are less observant.

For this reason, the variety of levels of practice among the non-Orthodox is of purely sociological interest, and is not relevant to the subject of this article. The article was basically saying "In Orthodox practice, those who renounce the practice of Judaism are treated as partial apostates, and this is treated as a disqualification from Jewish status for certain purposes. But where the renunciation is regarded as being under duress, this does not follow and the person is regarded as Jewish for all purposes." In a non-Orthodox context the whole question simply does not arise.--Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second message received. (By the way, I had moved your first message to the logically appropriate part of my talk page, I hadn't deleted it. There was therefore no need to reinsert it at the end.)

I think we are at cross purposes here. I did not write the original part of the article to which you objected. In fact if you look at the talk page of the article you will see quite a heated debate between me and the major author of the article (one "dramirezg"), in which he was saying that "meshumad" covers anyone who departs from normative Jewish practice and outlook in any way and I was saying that it should be confined to a deliberate rebel, such as a convert to another religion. Another debate was about whether to present only his own understanding of Jewish law (that all Iberian claimants to anus status should be recognised more or less automatically) or also the fact that many rabbis require them to undergo formal conversion for the avoidance of doubt about their lineage. After a while I simply gave up, realizing that I would never succeed in getting a readable and balanced presentation, because he clearly believed he owned the article and would fight tooth and nail for it.

My reason for reverting your original edit was quite different. It wasn't do do with the halachic status of Reform Jews as such, but only that it was irrelevant to the subject of the article to distinguish observant and non-observant strata within the Reform movement, as no legal consequences followed from this in Reform practice. It was this that I described as of "sociological interest", not the existence of Reform Judaism as such.

In general, I agree that neutrality requires all points of view to be represented. But as I explained the whole meshumad/anusim question is an intra-Orthodox argument, which does not arise in a Reform context. On the wider question of how Orthodox Judaism regards Reform Jews, I would rather steer away from it altogether in the current article, as it is highly controversial, and not relevant to the main thrust, which is the recognition of Iberian crypto-Jews. But if it is to be included, we need to present the Orthodox view as it is, and the Reform view as it is; but there is no need to include the Reform view of what the Orthodox view ought to be! --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. On the talk page issue, I simply reacted to what I saw. It's really not important. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not common practice to make new sections for each post on an article's talk page; this breaks up the flow of the discussion and makes it difficult for others to follow. Typically, if a discussion becomes extremely lengthy, a sub-header will be inserted somewhere below the main section header, so as to allow for easier editing while still maintaining the conversation within one discernable block.

Along those same lines, if an edit is reverted or altered soon after it is made, a consensus is sought on an article's talk page, per WP:BRD. The length of time an edit remains in an article only establishes consensus if it isn't soon reverted or altered, per WP:SILENCE. I hope that clarifies things. --Miesianiacal (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In your most recent edit to Commonwealth realm, you made some valid and accurate changes. However, at the same time, you also made a series of new mistakes. As someone who has worked extensively on that page, and is familiar with previous discussions that took place around it (i.e. the great Realm v. realm debate), I'd like to work with you on improving the page. However, please bear with me if I correct your corrections, so to speak, and - please - communicate on the talk page (minus the offensive commentary, that is). Cheers. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know one is not supposed to remove evidence of discussions from talk pages, but since you'd rather withdraw your comments, I have no intention of objecting. Thanks for your enthusiastic editing! Man vyi (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You added the Neuengamme move proposal under "uncontroversial proposals" at Wikipedia:Requested moves. I've removed it from there because it's already listed under "current discussions". We should wait for more people to comment in the discussion, and if after 7 days there's consensus to move, then the article will be moved. I hope you understand. Jafeluv (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! The reason you can't move the page is that the destination page has already been edited. Non-admins can only move pages if the desired destination page either 1) doesn't exist or 2) exists only as a redirect to the original location of the page, and has not been edited. In other cases, moving the page can only be done by an administrator, because it technically involves deleting the destination page. However, when the page has been listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves for 7 days, an admin will come along, read the move discussion, and move the page if it's decided that it should be moved. Let's wait and see what happens. I'm not an admin, so it has to be someone else :) Jafeluv (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Crown Point Road, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.crown-point-road.org/index.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for intruding on your user space, but I tweaked this page of yours so it would stop being listed at Category:Editor handbook. Let me know if you have any questions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Commonwealth military ranks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect U.s. navy navbox. Since you had some involvement with the U.s. navy navbox redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:United States uniformed services enlisted members has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:United States uniformed enlisted references has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Comparative military ranks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 15:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You added unreferenced content about Organization Todd there in 2009. Could you add references to your additions? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:United States uniformed services commissioned officers has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:United States uniformed services comparative ranks reference list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]