User talk:Ed!/9

Talk Archive
Archive 1: 08/2006 - 02/2008 Archive 2: 02/2008 - 05/2008 Archive 3: 05/2008 - 08/2008 Archive 4: 08/2008 - 05/2009 Archive 5: 05/2009 - 08/2009 Archive 6: 08/2009 - 11/2009 Archive 7: 11/2009 - 03/2010	Archive 8: 03/2010 - 04/2011 Archive 9: 04/2011 - 12/2011 Archive 10: 01/2012 - 07/2012 Archive 11: 07/2012 - 12/2012 Archive 12: 01/2013 - 01/2018 Current Archive: 01/2018 - Present

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article from "The Brigade, a history"

Ed- I can't summarize it easily enough to reference a specific unit other than the 3 brigades that received direct attention as examples. I'm assigned to the 43rd Sustainment Brigade and am prepping for deployment. Mikeofv (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)mikeofv[reply]

Are you trying to use it as a source on an article or trying to make an article about it? The book seems fairly streightforeward, it is history of how Brigades have been structured in the US Armed forces, how many there have been, and how they were used as units of deployment. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 21:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meanings of asteroid names (175001-176000)

Why did you mark this page with {{Refimprove}} when every one of the citations already had its reference given? Urhixidur (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because they aren't in the proper format. per WP:CITE, the references need to be parenthetical citations that identify the web site, author, access date, and so on, of the source. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 02:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this can be easily fixed by changing {{MPCit_JPL}}. I don't think we should make the inline parenthetical citation link to a References section, as this would grossly overburden the Meanings of asteroid names pages. In any case, the JPL SDB page is itself only a "redirect" of sorts, the true citation being the MPC (Minor Planet Circular)—which aren't available online. Urhixidur (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky, this. We can change the dagger for the string "JPL SDB" or "NASA JPL SDB", but there is no good date to put in, since those pages are updated all the time. Most pertinent would be the "Last Updated" date given on the "Reference: DISCOVERY.DB" line, but we're going to need some automated way of extracting this. Remember that there are nearly 15,000 named asteroids: I'm not about to do this manually! Do you know someone who could write a Perl script to do this? (I think Perl can do it, but I'm not sure) Urhixidur (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you urgently help Milhist please?

We've had a rather large bombshell dropped on us. The Wikipedia editorial team are aiming to release a version of Wikipedia on CD/DVD in time for the end of year holiday season. They've provided us with a list of 1333 Milhist articles they intend including.

The problem is that the quality of these articles varies considerably.

We've put together review page listing all the articles, in twenty-five article worklists. I'm hoping that 15-20 trusted editors can work through the list, weedying out problem articles and identifying suitable versions for release. The work is as far away from a tagging and assessing drive as you can imagine though, for convenience and ease of use, we've closely followed the traditional Milhist drive format.

This is, at the moment, an invitation-only review. The reason is that time is short and we can't afford too many mistakes. I'm only contacting experienced editors who performed very well indeed in the last two Milhist drives. I guess that working through a worklist of twenty-five articles will take between one and three hours to do. We're aiming to get the preliminary work done by next Sunday, so it's urgent too.

I do hope you can help but – if it's not too much trouble – if you are unable to participate at the moment, would you please let me know on my talk page? otherwise, please sign up here. Thank you for your time, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

173rd ABN

Hey there! My books mostly cover the WWII period, but I have some limited stuff on Vietnam airmobile operations as well. It depends how much detail you want; I could give you a couple of paragraphs on Corregidor in the WWII section and maybe some extra details on Vietnam. What level of detail were you thinking of? Skinny87 (talk) 08:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied, luckily we can pillage dtuff from the Battle of Dak To. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disappoint, but none of my sources really cover Vietnam in much depth. Skinny87 (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

K50 Dude The Great is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Have a great holiday, and an eventful new year!

198th IN BDE

Excellent work on those separate Army Brigades! I was wondering if you'd like to tackle the 198th Infantry Brigade. The 198th currently serves as Infantry OSUT BCT/AIT. Hal06 (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Yes, that Brigade would fall under my expertise, but I have a backup of GANs and Peer reviews going on right now that I'm trying to get out of the way before my busy holiday season, so I've been trying to get those taken care of first. I would like to do some work on it, though. There are probably a few good sources I get on that Brigade, too. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 22:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for the barnstar! I always enjoy reviewing your GANs, as they are well-written, well-referenced and well-organized. Keep up the good work! Dana boomer (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

172nd IBCT

hey! if ou are still searching for sources citing that the 172nd was transformed to a infantry brigade combat team, here are two: TFM website, army.mil. greetings from germany --Tafkas (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		You work to a supurb level. This is yours! K50 Dude ROCKS! 17:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! It's good to see one's work appreciated. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 17:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:OU Baker Center Exterior.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:OU Baker Center Exterior.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Units of World War II

Hi Ed, I found the unit insignia and shoulder patches of all ever existing US military formations at www.vetshome.com, which based its work on the U.S. Army Patches, Flashes and Ovals book, which contains over 3600 unit insignias. (if you go to www.vetshome.com, scroll down and then after about 1.5 screens on the left side appears a listing of all the various patches down to Military Medical Company Patch level :-) --noclador (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

32nd Infantry Division (United States)

Thank you for offering to help with the article. While this article seems to be in great shape, I could use some help with improving articles on or related to the Buffalo Soldiers, specifically the 92nd and 93rd divisions. Dodgerblue777 (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. Pending my work on the first two division articles, I'll see what I can do about these two. Any help would be appreciated. -Ed!^(talk) 13:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed my GA review. I think this article still needs a fair bit of work. It contains a lot of factual errors. Let me know if you want to withdraw it for further work. (Also: I never got the 41st Infantry Division finished...) Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7th Infantry Division GA Review

Hi mate, I am currently undertaking the GA Review for 7th Infantry Division (United States). I have left some comments on the review page attached to the talk page. Could you please take a look and get back to me. I have included a section for your responses at the bottom on the review page, so please feel free to edit the review page. It's looking good so far. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed two of the three problems you noted. As for the third, I'll look over the article later and try to fix what I find in terms of passive voice. -Ed!^(talk) 15:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have fixed everything you pointed out to me. -Ed!^(talk) 18:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, mate. Good work. Sorry it took a while for me to get back to. I got busy fixing one of my own articles up for GA. Its a bit 'jack' but I hope you will understand. I've passed the article for GA now. Nice work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps invitation

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainment Brigade (Special Operations) (Airborne)

According to the official 2009 US Special Operations Command Factbook the Special Operations Support Command does not exist in the U.S. Army Special Operations Command anymore and in its place the Sustainment Brigade (Special Operations) (Airborne) was activated on December 2, 2005 (with the same units attached). Therefore it is clear that User:Outdawg wrongly moved the page last August. I requested that the name be corrected and the article moved to Sustainment Brigade (Special Operations) (Airborne). However this supposedly runs afoul of the Wikipedia:naming conventions... which seems rather strange to me (how can the correct name as given by the US Special Operations Command be not acceptable???). Anyway: if you wish to participate in the discussion, you can find it here: Talk:Special Operations Support Command. --noclador (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Clarence Cope

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Clarence Cope, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

A couple of college newspaper articles aren't sufficient to demonstrate notability.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Rklawton (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

172nd IBCT

Hallo Ed! I would like to call your attention to the article of 172nd Infantry Brigade which was again moved without discussion by Dcfowler1. Hope you can give a professional opinion on this. Thanks and greeting, --Tafkas (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that on the talk page, we can hold a vote about it. -Ed!^(talk) 04:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7th Infantry Division Brigades

Hey Ed. I have some problems with the three Brigade articles you've nominated for GAN. Looking through them, apart from a few minor differences, they all look exactly the same down to the citations and references, and they also appear to be missing a large section of their history - namely their WWII service. According to their parent article the division saw a great deal of action in the Pacific theatre during WWII, but there is absolutely nothing about this in their articles. Could you possibly clarify these matters for me? Skinny87 (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. About the article similarities, at many points they have similar histories, so I decided to put in everything that happened to all three in each article for clarity purposes because I think that makes them all more comprehensive by themselves. About the World War II section, as the history sections state, none of the brigades were active during World War II, because the US Army used a Regimental system in World War II and Korea before switching back to Brigades afterward. -Ed!^(talk) 20:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've put them up for a Good Topic. Browsing through the articles, it seems odd to me that you've used so few sources, and almost all of them seem to be official or related to the US Army in some way. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but a lack of diversity and details concerns me, especially for the parent article; surely there's a divisional history that you could have used, for example? Skinny87 (talk) 07:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I've been having a hard time finding comprehensive sources for the Division and, for now, the books provided online by the US Army Center for Military History are all the book resources I've been able to find. In a few weeks, however, I intend to put in more work on the articles when I have access to a few public libraries around my home town. I intended to try and promote all of them further, but for the next few weeks, I've used all the resources I have access to. -Ed!^(talk) 03:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7th Infantry Division Legacy

I see that you deleted my small contribution. Would like to know why. srSeniorCitizen

Sure. I've rebuilt the article in the past month and dramatically increased its quality. It was recently promoted to a Good Article and, along with the articles for its three subordinate brigades, it is currently nominated to be a Good Topic. Therefore, I've been watching the article closely to make sure it stays at the highest quality possible.

Regarding this:

Known by veterans, the 7th ID was a tough as nails unit. Trained in light infantry tactics with an emphasize on jungle warfare, soldiers were consistently in the field for weeks. Discipline and training was essential and the unit was on constant combat readiness (ready to deploy within an hour).

The reason I removed that part is that it is not sourced. Per WP:CITE, statements like this must be cited to a verifiable source, such as a book or newspaper article, which must be present in the article. Since the statement comes of as a non-factual opinion, I am concerned that it will be contested, reducing the article's reliability. If you have a source for that statement, feel free to add the graph again with the cited source.

Regarding this:

Command Sergeant Major of AFRICOM, Mark S. Ripka

The list of names on that passage includes people who are notable enough to have their own articles on Wikipedia. CSM Ripka is of high rank, but not high enough to warrant his own article on Wikipedia, and as the Division has had such a long history, there are too many names that could go there, which would just make the article too long. And as the statement is also unsourced, it could threaten the advancement of the article in quality if it stays on the page without a source. I hope that helps! -Ed!^(talk) 03:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reviews

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews April to June 2009, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. Roger Davies ^talk 12:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary removal of File:197thInfantryBrigade.svg

I'm writing in regards to your removal of File:197thInfantryBrigade.svg from 197th Infantry Brigade. I created an exact digitized rendering of the 197th Infantry Brigade's insignia so that it would be in accordance with Wikipedia's Image Use Policy which outlines:

the use of JPEG format for photographic images; SVG format for icons, logos, drawings, maps, flags, and such

Reverting the insignia back to the low-resolution .jpg file is simply counter-productive both to the integrity of the page but also goes against the basic outline of the image use policy. More clearly, the .svg format is a far superior choice both in quality, size, and general flexibility (i.e., it is a vector and is not subject to the compression and blurring of a .jpg image). Additionally, your version of the insignia is not a photographic image; it is a scan of the insignia. For these reasons I am reverting your edit on the 197th Infantry Brigade page back to the .svg rendering of the insignia. 04:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrimsonScholar (talk • contribs)

- Sorry if that came off a bit too hostile (?). I was looking through some of your other insignia contributions and they're all a great starting point for digitization. We're both working towards the same goal: improving the (U.S.) military-related articles on wikipedia. So, if it's alright with you, I'm going to continue to work off of your aforementioned contributions by continuing to digitize insignia so that there's more high-quality insignia gracing the pages of wikipedia. CrimsonScholar^{(talk • contribs)} 05:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, my concern was with the shade of blue used on the insignia. The version I uploaded was from The Institute of Heraldry, the original creators of the insignia. Their version uses a much darker blue. Normally I would be ambivalent on such things, but TIOH has very tecnical descriptions on each insignia. I've seen the 197th Brigade's insignia and it matches that shade of blue (as opposed to the 193rd Infantry Brigade Insignia, which uses a shade much closer to the new 197th Brigade file) I apologize because I now realize I should have just asked you about this in the first place. -Ed!^(talk) 13:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it's an easy fix. I'll have to cross-reference different sources for future reference when digitizing these insignias so that everything is completely accurate. CrimsonScholar^{(talk • contribs)} 05:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]