Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by military branch

Copied from Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress

User:Jmabel
- Vandalised Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by military branch. Added section that stated "MAKE LOVE NOT WAR". This is NOT the place for political views. Linuxbeak 03:05, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  - I will point out that this is from an editor who seems to think (judging by his or her own edits to that page) that "Army…HOOAH!", "Navy…AYE AYE!", Marine Corps…OOH-RAH!", Air Force…AIR POWER!",, and Coast Guard…AYE AYE!" are NPOV. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:27, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  - As you can see, my supposed vandalism included (1) a spelling correction (2) noting the fact that the U.S. Military is not the only military in the world, and (3) an addition which might be argued to be in questionable taste, but I do not believe in the context of the many humorous additions to the various lists of Wikipedians constitutes vandalism. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:37, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

In short, while I will not reinsert the apparently objectionable passage, I absolutely deny that it constituted vandalism, and believe it was entirely in the spirit common to the various lists of Wikipedians. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:37, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Not a very tactful move though... Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 09:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once a Marine, always a Marine!

Hi - I added that phrase to the USMC header because I don't fit in the categories listed (active, reserve, retired) as I was in the Corps for three years, '64 - '67, not long enough to be retired and I'm not active nor in the reserves. I could have added former or once upon a time, but I thought Once a Marine, always a Marine! to be more to the point. -Vsmith 6 July 2005 23:05 (UTC)

That's completely understandable. If you were in for three years, but not retired, does that make you discharged then? We could add that :-) Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk July 6, 2005 23:07 (UTC)

Honorably ... Vsmith 6 July 2005 23:22 (UTC)

Okay, let's do that. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk July 6, 2005 23:22 (UTC)

Usernames

I standardized the list of Wikipedians by removing the piped wikilinks that were different from the username. [1] Revert if you like, but please explain. =) Jumping cheese 04:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Removing Comments on Wikipedians by Military Branch Acceptable?

If I may ask, what Wikipedia policy applies to comments or slogans following user names on the above list? Your characterization of the comments/slogans as "grafitti" seems a bit inappropriate. As you only seem interested in removing comments from the USMC section, mayhaps there is a POV problem (either perceived by you or held by you). As for the most part the brief comments were added by the users at the time of listing I can see no problem or reason for removal. Note, the comment after my user name was added by another user back in July '05, not by me (see the talk page for background). I await your explanation and please explain why you characterize the comments as "grafitti" - that strikes me as rather incivil and simply insulting to our fellow veterans. Vsmith (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are offended, see WP:SORRY, my logic behind removal is namely the format of the list of users. No where else in the article are there comments that have no valid information about the user (i.e., service career, time in service, unit, etc.). The comments do not contribute to the information on the article page.

On another note, there is no way of proving or disproving that these users are "veterans" or servicemembers (future, current or former). So to raise the issue of insulting veterans of Wiki users is out of context and being over sensitive because of the fact that those users who list themselves, there's no creidble or verifiable means of proving their service. -Signaleer (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, it is not an article - it is a list of users and not in article space. Therefor removing user comments is rather like removing comments on a user or even article talk page - it's simply not done without very good reason. I'd suggest that you read WP:AGF as you seem to be assuming the opposite here. If you feel a user has misused this page and added inappropriate material or "isn't a veteran" then take action, do not make a blanket accusation against all users who have added their usernames here, which of us are you calling a liar? As such I'd suggest you apologize to the other users for your incivil comments and for broadly implying that users are lying without any evidence. Vsmith (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly this list is not an article it is also not a user talk page. There have been users who have formatted what goes and what does not for uniformity. There are no personal comments on Wikipedia article pages, so I'm a bit confused why you mention that or the use of a talk page. This is neither of the above. I am familiar with the good faith term of Wiki so do not try to patronize me. If you're expecting an apology, you're a bit out of line, please see WP:NPA.

You have not addressed the issue of uniformity or my comment about adds nothing to the article having those comments. Users who list their names are based on good faith, however, this list of users is not a Wiki article thus the notability and credibility is a moot subject. I could care less (or for that matter a lot of Wiki users) whether or not someone claims to have served, plans to serve or is currently serving in their respective countries militaries. Even if you were to prove or disprove a user's service, what point does it prove? It doesn't.

So to bring up the status of a "veteran" does not give you or any other user the right to add what ever he or she wants on a Wikipedia user list. Reiterating that this list is not a user talk page and even on a user talk page, a user does not have free reign as to what content they may on their user talk page since there are policies in place. You have misconstrued what I am trying to convey to you. No one is calling anyone a liar, the whole point is that the use of "veteran" is not a factor for removal nor is it a reason why someone can write what ever he/she deems on this page. My regards. -Signaleer (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of an article is this?

Hi. I know it follows on a bit from the previous topic in which it's pointed out that this is not a User or User Talk page, but what do you think about (1) spelling mistakes and (2) graphics of badges of rank? On spelling, it's quite simple - there's a spelling mistake that I'd like to fix; if it was in an article I would just do so; as this is an odd semi-personal format, I am unclear whether or not I should. On the graphic, someone's just introduced a graphic of a badge of rank. I think this is a bad idea, because if everyone did that the list would look a complete mess very quickly - but I am loth to revert it, again because I don't really feel quite sure what nature of beast this list/article actually is. I'd be interested to hear your views. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No graphics, please. Too much like high school. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]