Don'tKnowItAtAll

Welcome...

Hello, Don'tKnowItAtAll, 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:

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

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Aboutmovies

Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

In reference to the Military of the United States article, there is a precedence of order to displaying the service branches and service academies of the United States. This general rule also applies when marching (i.e., the Presidential inaguration) or listing the service branches of the United States. The reason behind the order is based on the date in which the organizations came into being as far as the service branches and service academices respectively. The Army being the oldest service branch and the Air Force being the youngest. The U.S. Coast Guard has always been the last service branch to be listed, I'm not sure of the exact reasoning behind this but it just is. This regulation can be found at AR 840-10, 1 November 1998 2–5. Order of precedence of flags The following is the order of precedence of flags:

e . Military organizational flags of the Services in order of precedence
(1) Cadets, United States Military Academy
(2) Midshipmen, United States Naval Academy
(3) Cadets, United States Air Force Academy
(4) Cadets, United States Coast Guard Academy
(5) Midshipmen, United States Merchant Marine Academy
(6) United States Army
(7) United States Marine Corps
(8) United States Navy
(9) United States Air Force
(10) United States Coast Guard
(11) Army National Guard of the United States
(12) Army Reserve
(13) Marine Corps Reserve
(14) Naval Reserve
(15) Air National Guard of the United States
(16) Air Force Reserve
(17) Coast Guard Reserve
(18) Other training organizations of the Army, Marine Corps,
Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard, in that order, respectively.

-Signaleer (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Since you tagged Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 with a CSD tag I thought you may be interested in this discusison. Cheers. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I removed the Category:United States environmental law because it is the parent category of Category:United States federal environmental legislation, and therefore to have both categories on one article is redundant. Please let me make it clear that my edits were purely organizational in nature, and not a comment on the quality of your work or anyone else's. Actually, it is good that you include so much information about Army Corps of Engineers projects. --Eastlaw (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've replied at User talk:Pdfpdf#reply-to-don. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Seriously, DontKnowItAtAll, please read and follow Wikipedia policies. Your edits are really disruptive because you are trying to present the "truth" - please read WP:Truth - the truth doesn't matter, only the sources. I'm sorry you don't like the sources and what they say and what they say about what they say, but there it is. Please stop changing the article to present your spin on the sources - that is against WP:Truth, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. If you continue this disruptive behavior without any attempt to dialogue about these policies, I will have to register a complaint.. Ricardiana (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please be aware that you are very close to violating the Wikipedia:Three revert rule (I'll assume here that the addition of tags doesn't count as a revert). DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey dude, I think you're right. This ricardino guy is a certified jerk.. the loser's obsessed with the hardy boys article and snaps at anyone trying to ask a question there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.242.29.27 (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I undid your deletions of two valid branches of engineering from this list because you were clearly operating on the basis of your personal opinion and not the structure of the field. I have a master's degree in Systems Design Engineering and studied Operations Research as part of my degree. I also confirmed by noting journals in the field that both Operations Research and Surveying are in fact branches of engineering as avered by professional engineering societies. If you try to revert these changes to exert your personal beliefs over the actual structure of the profession as studied and practiced, I will, as others have threatened above, file a complaint against you. That's just not appropriate.Netmouse (talk) 00:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I notice you are "fixing" a lot of links to redirects. This is not really needed or desirable. The reasons are detailed at WP:NOTBROKEN. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

And I'm having a really hard time understanding why you would even want to alter a redirect link in a talk page conversation from 2006:[1]. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there,

Per your question on your talk page -- I can see how that might be confusing. What I did was to create a new category, Category:Flood control acts in the United States. Then, I put that category into the specific ones you mentioned (water law, environmental law, etc. etc.) So when I put the individual Acts in the new category, the specific ones became redundant; they were already in those categories by virtue of being in the new FCA-US category I made. Make sense? -Pete (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Thanks Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 06:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I thought this description of {{current}}'s best use would be usefully informative to you:
Template:Current#Guidelines.
The activity on the article about recent Missouri River activity, 2011 Missouri River floods, is to say the least, quiescent, the last several weeks.
Regards,
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

You have removed my completely factual text. What would you like to talk about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheldonville (talk • contribs) 23:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

The question was asked and a 'dah' given, so seek and you shall find. This may be of help in putting the puzzle together; it appears a hirsute yak. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Hi Don'tKnowItAtAll. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Alex Holmes, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. There is an assertion of notability; though I happen to agree with your reasoning, deletion of articles on professional athletes is considered controversial, necessitating an AfD The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's not a big deal; NSPORTS can be extremely confusing, and if it were up to me I'd have deleted it, but A7 is a hermetic seal. If you'd like, I can start an AfD for you; it's actually very simple if you turn Twinkle on in your preferences. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

• 1. The article was not deleted, info was at main article.
• 2. There is no evidence of separate notability for the divisions.
• 3. There does not appear to be any expansion of these stubs.
• 4. These appear to be unnecessary content forking.
• 5. In passing, the article titles are inappropriate.

--Bejnar (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi DKAA, Thank you for intervening with the alternate egos of User talk:AGC-webmaster and User talk:Rebecca.a.armermann, regarding her editing at Army Geospatial Center. She has removed the tag requesting independent references for the article I undid revision 489195399 by AGC-webmaster (talk), stating "The tag should stay until there are more third party references. She undid revision 489245885 by HopsonRoad (talk), stating that "There is no need for third party sources when the changes are made by the main source of AGC." My view is that most of the references are either from the website, interviews of the director or articles by AGC employees, and therefore the tag should remain. As AGC webmaster, she appears to be taking a proprietary approach to this article and does not appear to understand NPOV. I feel that she brushes off my input. Perhaps you would be willing to look into this and provide your input. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 16:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Army Geospatial Center page does not need consense on factual information that it is providing. According to the Third-party source rule

• Wikipedia's policy on both Verifiability and No original research states that "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

• Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability states that "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

• Wikipedia's guideline on Reliable sources states that "Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources".

• Wikipedia's guideline on Notability states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."

AGC-webmaster (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

That's a good and pertinent summary of Wikipedia policy, AGC-webmaster. No one disputes the probable notability of AGC. The concern is the absence of third-party sources in the article and the potential for bias of an agency employee working on it. The NYT would never allow an agency to write about itself. Wikipedia is more generous, as long as the representative is scrupulous about WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR; WP:OWN; WP:CON, among other policies.

Surely there are articles by independent journalists in media that cover your topic area, which you can cite. I looked for some, but tended to find articles by AGC employees, which do not satisfy the criterion. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 00:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Don'tKnowItAtAll. You have new messages at Talk:Michigan left.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Chaswmsday (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You have been listed as missing. Should you ever return of if you don't want to be listed, feel free to remove your name. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:31, 4 January 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) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply