User talk:とある白い猫/Archive/2017/02

とある白い猫 A Certain White Cat User Page | Office | Talk Page | Bot edits | Sandbox SB2 SB3 JA TR Commons Meta Hello this is an Archive. Please do not edit. You are welcome to post comments regarding material here at my user talk page.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2005 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2012 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2006 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2013 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2007 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2014 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2008 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2015 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2009 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2016 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2010 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2017 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2011 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2018 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

——————————————— Archive, February 2017 ——————————————— Your bot I know this edit is from 2014, but i'm just curious why did your bot change this redirect? DashyGames (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC) @DashyGames: Hello, it was probably because of this edit corresponding with the Wikipedia:Double redirects process running on Wikimedia server that generates the Special:DoubleRedirects log. This task typically runs once a day and simple edits like this does not really cause an issue. My bot merely processes that. So basically, because User:Sandbox for user warnings -> Wikipedia:Sandbox -> Washington Redskins the bot changed that to User:Sandbox for user warnings -> Washington Redskins to avoid the redundant redirect. That was a very interesting find. Perhaps modifying redirects or using the #redirect magic word should be limited to auto confirmed users IF this is a pressing problem. At the moment this case seems to be the only example (or at least the first time I have seen something like this). -- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker) FYI, I once ended up fully protecting a lot of the sandbox shortcuts (WP:SAND, WT:SAND, WP:SANDBOX, WT:TEST, ...) because of bots doing this :) There's more examples in their histories. The nobots template can also be used if it's a problem. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC) @Zzuuzz: I think protection is a better option here in that case since these are redirects that will not be changed. Removing nobots is trivial after all. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 23:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC) General Officer vs Flag Officer @ H. R. McMaster For O-7 through O-10, if the officer is in the Army, they are referred to as a "General Officer", while if they are in the Navy, they are referred to as a "Flag Officer". If you check Section 526a of Title 10 (10 USC 526), you will also see federal law specifically refers to "General Officers" of the Army, Air Force, and USMC, and to "Flag Officers" of the Navy. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC) @AzureCitizen: Ah, I did not realize that, thank you for correcting it. Going back to the subject, I feel a separate section for OF-6 and above does not make a whole lot of sense. Articles on other military people tend to cover "military career" as a section without such distinctions. This will be particularly helpful since this individual will now get a section for their role as the National Security Adviser to the POTUS as things are bound to happen around the world. Do you think we can simply drop the sections by rank down to a "military career" section? -- A Certain White Cat chi? 16:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Certainly... feel free to remove the subsection headers (company, field, general, etc.) Most biographies don't have subsections like that; I put those in to replace what was there previously, which was "Early Career", "Later Career", and "Controversy over promotion to general", or something like that. If want to just have a nice clean section titled "Career" or "Military Career" instead at the top, I'm okay with it. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)