Talk:Cold War Victory Medal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

++The image caption is wrong++ The image caption is wrong because it states that the Department of Defense awards the medal. If this is not an DoD approved medal, the DoD can't issue it. The aritcle also states that this is a private medal and is not authroized for wearing on any military uniform. Please fix the caption to correctly insure the right message is sent.

Regards, Mike Surles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.191.20.74 (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

I have semi-protected this article due to anon ip users cutting and pasting large amounts of text in from other websites, namly a website called Foxfall Medals. In addition, the mateiral is highly POV, making statements that the creator of the medal is "reknowned" and that the medal "shows respect and dedication" to name but a few. The anon ip user was contacted regarding these edits, but did not answer and promptly reverted to the previous version. This protection should be removed only after a talk page discussion has resolved the issue. -Husnock 04:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

What Mr. Husnock must realize is that he personally copy and pasted text directly from the Fox Fall Medal website. The picture of the medal and the direct wording came from that site. That is not really a problem though as the owner of Fox Fall owns the rights to the medal. Links have been provided proving it. The owner himself typed in additional information about the medal. For reasons unknown Mr. Husnock deleted the owners own typing. When the owner of the medal and the web page types in information it is not a copyright violation. Despite belief to the contrary the medal is not in public domain. It wasn't created from thin air. It was in fact privately created. Mr. Husnock can easily contact the owner of the medal and he will be enlightened. —This unsigned comment was added by 209.216.179.19 (talk • contribs) .

I compared the current version of the article to the Foxfall website and it actually does not contain any similar wording or exact pasting from the site. the "extra information" was a second article tacked on the end of this one which was a direct cut and paste. As far as the picture goes, I believe it comes from the Institute of Heraldry. Finially, the article was not protected due to content dispute but to prevent open cutting and pasting from another website which is a clear copyvio problem and is alaso bad form as Wikipedia is not a mirror to other sites (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). In addition, it seemed that one user was using several anon ip address to reinsert the disputed edits over and over again, thus coming very close to violating the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. -Husnock 05:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)