Jump to content

User talk:Brian in denver

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Buckshot06 (talk | contribs) at 20:34, 4 April 2012 (→‎142nd Infantry Regiment (United States): req). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary for your edits. Thank you. --Flash176 (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history Project

You might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. We're a collaborative project aimed at improving Wikipedia's coverage of military history. We've been here since 2002, and new members are always welcome :-). So far the projec t has produced 341 featured articles. If you need help with writing any articles or whatever drop by the talk page, there are plenty of people watching it who can help ;-).--Pattont/c 14:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:GMC-cckw-swb.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:GMC-cckw-swb.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. 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 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) 16:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oops fergot to hit the button.Brian in denver (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Chevrolet G506 trucks

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Chevrolet G506 trucks, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

WP:NOT, indiscriminate collection of information. WP is not a listing of every single product, that can go on the cumulative list page (which is linked to here), basically lack of notability for own page.

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. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 15:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chevrolet G506 trucks

Hope you don't mind I have been doing some cleanup and additions to your articles whenever I get a chance. I think you're doing a great job in scanning photos and ferreting thru military manuals to compile a comprehensive reference of the subjects. Sometimes adding historical detail (I've found Google Books a great resource) helps keep articles from getting deleted on the basis of non-notability. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • YAH, Im getting perty paranoid about the acid paper thing, if some of this obscure stuff doesent get digatized perty soon were going to lose it forever. googles done a good job on some stuff, but there really sucking wind on manuals, the picture quality on the old "photo copy" type printing style leaves a lot to be desired, finding a pic. thattl translate is a pain. Brian in denver (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Model-Year disambiguization

dont know, you could wind up with a 150 pages=years of army inventory. I only did WWI, M1916, ect. so what do think???Brian in denver (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a tough one. How about doing it only for the most notable model-year numbers? - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dodge WC

Hi Brian, I was wondering if you knew what this is, it looks to me like a post-war WC64 conversion. Thanks, Brutal Deluxe (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian in denver (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at this, I'll update the article when I have time. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pershing

I don't know if you have a specific or general interest in Pershing, but I am one of the historians for the Pershing Professionals Association. See my user page for my bibliographies, and my about link for my vocations and avocations. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SCS-51

anybody interested? Brian in denver (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

W33 / M422

Sorry it took so long to respond, I was at a conference last week and am catching up on my Wikipedia stuff.

Yes, the W33 was the nuclear warhead component of the M422 / M422A1 artillery around, also known as T-317. Same thing.

A lot about the warhead is known, but the total design isn't declassified yet. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • now thats interesting, still early enough to get a T-number. of course, now curious minds want to know what T-1 through T-316 are. I guess its a curse I have. Brian in denver (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

La Noblette

anybody on the planet know where La Noblette France is/was? Brian in denver (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

50th Education Squadron

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of 50th Education Squadron, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.usafa.edu/df/dfmi/50ES/50eshist.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Military Barnstar

Military Barnstar
I'd like to recognize the tremendous effort you've put in building a list of early American Aero Squadrons. Your work has been very enlightening to me, please keep it up!--Ndunruh (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I got perty turned on when I found Gorrells Brian in denver (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aero squadrons

From what I have noticed, some of the histories don't tell the whole story. From what I have read, virtually all of the ANG ones are linked to the aero squadrons. If you find anything that I did wrong, please feel free to notify me and I will promptly correct it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • unfortunatly the only way to tell for sure is by contacting the airforce museum guys, and there only going to want to provide info one unit at a time, if thay even know.. if you can get an answer at all. still there better than the army goons. lord knows Iv been tempted to make the assumption and connect the units. but Iv held off. but trying to prove there was an army between 1920 and 1938 is a real chore.Brian in denver (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I've noticed is that they just reactivate them, but don't include the unit history. I've looked at units that were early squadrons between 100 and 125 and they all seem to have a link. I think it might have to do with the fact that we could know more than they do. If you want, I would be willing to help you on EFOIA requests, which will either number in the hundreds or just a few. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think my little pea pickin heart could handle another go around with a gov. burucrat. its a little frustrating that the units dont have enough esprit de corps to take care of there own pages. Brian in denver (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supply catalog

Hi Brian, I admire your good work on the article, if can make a suggestion, it would be helpful to know how the orders were made. For example, when asking for bazookas (B42 M20, M20B1, rocket launcher), would the person making the order have to simply write 200 X B42 or would they have to specify M20 or M20B1, or simply did the type supplied change automatically as the new type was introduced? Regarding the unknown or unused letters, my theory is that certain letters were not used as they could be confused with other similar looking ones (letter I could be confused for 1, O for Q, and so on) Regards, Brutal Deluxe (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • there was a Joe Dope cartoon i wanted to use to illistrate that point, but now I cant seem to find it. in going through the "monthley catalog of government pubs." it seems a lot of SNLs are missing, there must have been some reporting or other kind of SNAFU, in the system. that thay didnt make into the index. I havent been able to bring myself to contact rock island arsenal yet. although I have found a guy who claims to have an Ord-1 or Ord-2. he wasent sure. but depending on the date it might have all the obsolete SNLs crossed out. Brian in denver (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mortar List

I saw your addition of the lengthy mortar list, List of heavy mortars, to the article on Coast defense mortar. I notice that the 12-inch coast defense mortars (I believe there were at least three models: 1886, 1890, and 1908) are all themselves missing from the list! :-) You might want to consider adding them, since that's the focus of the article. I'd also be curious to know if my comment in the article that the 12-inchers were the largest, most widely deployed mortars in the world is in fact correct... Pgrig (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hobey Baker and the Lafeyette Escadrille

Thanks for pointing that out. Looking at it, if I understand correctly, he joined the 103rd to late to be considered part of the Escadrille then? If so, then most sources on Baker would seem to be wrong on the matter, as all of them list him as part of the Escadrille. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • yah, its a perty common confusion. the Escadrille was a French government outfit. the 103rd was American. but becouse it was infused with the Escadrill pilots, it gets called that alot. Brian in denver (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WWI US guns template

Hi there, good work on this. However, maybe the 75-mm model 1917 and 6-inch Mk 19 guns shouldn't be included, as to the best of my knowledge the US didn't use them in action during the war. I think they obtained a few Mk 19 guns after the war, possibly just for evaluation. regards, Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 08:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

could be, theres a mess of stuff that came out about 30 seconds after the war was over. still trying to sort it out. Brian in denver (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coast Artillery Corps

Hi Brian--

You left a msg on my Talk page suggesting that I might want to start a page on the CAC, with unit IDs, etc. While there are a lot of folks who have all that RA and NG info at their finger tips, I'm afraid that I'm not one of them. :-) So if you want to start something like that off, go right ahead! I tend to be interested in the technology of the CAC (guns, fortifications, fire control, etc.), and am working on a website cataloging coast artillery sites in New England, 1895 through WW2 (CoastDefense.com)

Have a Happy New Year! Pgrig (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radars

Read your note about the articles I recently created and having the manufacturer's name in them. There is also a #redirect with just the AN/xxx name as well created when I made them. So any difficulty with regards to finding them, or linking them with just the AN/XXX shouldn't be an issue. Regards... Bwmoll3 (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Colorado

flagWikiProject
Colorado
flag United States
notice board

The year 2011 has brought many changes to the State of Colorado. We have a new Governor and other state officers, two new U.S. Representatives, many new state legislators, and a new Mayor of Denver. WikiProject Colorado is updating many Colorado articles. Many Colorado places, people, and organizations need new articles. Portal:Colorado needs new featured articles.

Can you help us? Please see our list of some requested articles. If you wish, you may join WikiProject Colorado at Wikipedia:WikiProject Colorado/Members. If you have any questions, please leave me a message at User talk:Buaidh or e-mail me at Special:EmailUser/Buaidh. Thanks for any help you can provide.

Don't forget the Wikipedia 10th Anniversary event in Boulder tomorrow. Yours aye,  Buaidh  21:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My recent rollback on your page

Was a mistake; I'm editing from a touchscreen phone right now. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ACW unit styling

Hello Brian,

Units aren't styled in that manner. You might try looking at this guide. You were reverted the other day when you began that. Such changes would need discussion. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interesting that. however thats not the way the the official unit histories are written. Brian in denver (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • guess I didnt relize there was a little CW club, that was to good to share there unit hitory with the current guys, gee Iv never run into that before. oh wait I have. thats right in my own unit 2bn 157th FA the wwII guys were always keen not to invite current guys to there events. I guess everyones just to good to cross link unit histories. Brian in denver (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is being exclusive. You might find the ACW task force is more welcoming than you imagine. Also, there is a current drive on ACW articles to improve them.
If you feel the styling is in error, you might try raising your concerns at the MILHIST talk page.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that I could articulate Spacini's particular reason correctly. Not all units have the continuity that they claim (I'm not saying that is the case with this one). For example, the 7th Cavalry died with Custer. Any attempts to drum up morale by using the same unit number is propaganda...that is, it would be a completely different unit and they really don't share in the same history. The US Army Rangers try to promote Rogers' Rangers as their heritage...but it isn't. The Marines claim involvement in the Revolution...but in reality they began in 1798 having no common members, training, anything whatsoever in common with the naval infantry that existed at the time of the Revolution. If the unit disbanded, then the history really isn't inherited. Heritage & pride rarely mix well with facts. The branches of service make lots of claims that aren't correct concerning "official" history.
Would you mind if I invite Spacini here to explain? I wouldn't want to presume errantly. I'm simply in keeping with other discussions, guides, etc. that I'm aware of on Wikipedia...I do agree with them but I didn't write them.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • yah, it helps if your drunk, but the horse survived so what more do you want. bottom line is you play the hand your delt. and untill I get elected presedent, and yank their tail straight. thats the way its going to be. Brian in denver (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stumbled across this while chasing down some other information, and for what it's worth the 7th Cav did NOT die with Custer. Remember that Reno and Benteen both had battalions, and the bulk of those DID survive the battle. Where unit linkage really starts to break down is in the aftermath of World War II, and especially with the CARS system developed in the 1950s.Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Public Domain texts

Hey, I saw that you added information from the Heraldry institute in these edits, please make sure when you do so you attribute the public domain text with Template:AIOH. Thanks, Sadads (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the appropriate one, ACMH is for the the Army Center of Military History not the Army Institute of Heraldry, Sadads (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hate it when that happens Brian in denver (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

78th Field Artillery Regiment (United States)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of 78th Field Artillery Regiment (United States), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://wwii.memorieshop.com/Hutchins/78th-FAR.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

81st Field Artillery Regiment (United States)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of 81st Field Artillery Regiment (United States), and it appears to include material copied directly from 901333,00.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

84th Field Artillery Regiment (United States)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of 84th Field Artillery Regiment (United States), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://9thinfdivsociety.org/artillery/1st84th.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of 84th Field Artillery Regiment (United States)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on 84th Field Artillery Regiment (United States) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Physics is all gnomes (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • the contents is clearly annotated under references. Please pay attention. the 9th ID site IS a copy of the GOV. site. Brian in denver (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I've removed the speedy. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of 1st Aviation Regiment (United States)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on 1st Aviation Regiment (United States) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Peaceworld 20:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • the contents is clearly annotated under references. Please pay attention. Brian in denver (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sidi Haneish Airfield

Other than 9th AF used it for about a week, nothing. It most likely was a RAF Desert Air Force field, may have been used by the Luftwaffe (that's from just knowing the history of the Western Desert Campaign), but no documentation to support that... Regards.. Brent Bwmoll3 (talk) 04:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sidi Azeiz Airfield

Was looking at the German map you provided. Well done by the way obtaining that.. The airfield indicated on it may be the one I identified as Baheira Airfield ? Was looking at the imagery of the area and the curvature of the roads indicated on the map and in the imagery. The airfield identified as Baheira seems to match what is shown on the German map Bwmoll3 (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmmmm dont know? in going through the german web site http://www.wwii-photos-maps.com/targetnorthafrica/index.html I'v been unable to match there designations to the allies. evedently I'm the first one to discover wikimapia, cuz nuthing else is marked yet. in the phisicle discription of the airfield I see no pavement, bldgs, or bunkers? on the satelite photo? just dirt. any idea when the discription was written or where thay got the coord.? Brian in denver (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ok I think found the airfield that matched the phisicle discription of Bir el Baheira, and linked it on the article. looks a might modern to be WWII I suspect the dirt field was more to the east. Brian in denver (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

26CAV (PS)

For helping to improve the article about the often overlooked 26th CAV. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MILHIST discussion

Please see a discussion I started in the MILHIST Talk page. Thank you. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coats of arms of U.S. Air Defense Artillery Regiments

Do you realise that in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Field Army insignia of the United States Army that these type of image galleries should be on Commons? The Corps, division, brigade, and other galleries all need to be moved. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC) hmmm- thatll take more expertese than i got Brian in denver (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Templates

You seem to be the creater of a Template for US Regiments?? I am trying to create a simular template for Arkansas Confederate Infantry Regiments. So far I have been unsucessfull. Could you be of assistance. I am trying to make the Next and Previous reflect the units listed in List of Arkansas Civil War Confederate units. So far all I have been sucessful in creating is a loop.Aleutian06 (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well looks like sombody fixed it, evedently I left out the word "infobox" Brian in denver (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Template:Infobox Arkansas Confederate Infantry Regiments/doc[reply]

Survey for new page patrollers

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Brian in denver! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Upload free media to Commons, please!

Thank you for uploading free images/media such as File:194thArmorReg.png to Wikipedia! As you may know, there is another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please upload media there instead (see m:Help:Unified login). That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view previous uploads by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'file' namespace from the drop down box (or see [1]). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading! :Jay8g Hi!- I am... -What I do... WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM 17:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well tried it. what a pain in the butt, the catagory thing doesent work at all. whetever happened to standardization? Brian in denver (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

I had a few questions about something. In return, I may be able to help you locate a thing or two on your want list. email me - srh@esper.com

Shawn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.153.92.151 (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

213th Coast Artillery (United States)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of 213th Coast Artillery (United States), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/1-213ada.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)Template:Z119 CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • all lineage and honor cirtificates are generated by the center for military history. please pay attention in class Brian in denver (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. A lot of these notices could be avoided if you linked to the exact page at the Center for Military History where the wording and information came from instead of a generic page, i.e. http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/lh.html. Ditto generic links to Google Books without the exact page number, i.e. this. Also, if you quote material verbatim as you have here, even from a public domain source, you need to attribute it. If nothing else, you need to use Template:Army Center of Military History. It can save a lot of headaches and time for those of us who have to check all the Coren Search Bot reports. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of World War II North Africa Airfields

Hi Brian, just looking at them now...the LRDG occasionally used some landing grounds; eg: LG-84 (rarely much more than a flat, firm surface with a couple of oil drums to guide the planes in) for resupply, or to quickly get casualties back to base - mostly the LRDG set up supply dumps in selected locations en-route, using their "Heavy" section to carry petrol, food and equipment to these sites. The main reason there were so many landing grounds strung out along the west of the sand sea was to resupply the 8th Army, or to provide air support. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 02:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME

Hi Brian, thanks for all your work on U.S. regiments. However, in accordance with the above MOS guideline, they only need (United States) placed after them if there are other units of other nations' armed forces with the same name. So most infantry regiments need (United States), but I am not aware of a single other country that has 'x-th Air Defense Artillery Regiments' or 'x-th Coastal Artillery Regiments' so these do not need the disambiguator after their names, as they are unique. Some previous users have got carried away in the past adding (United States) to many unique unit names, but this is not necessary. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy!

I noticed that we've both edited a few of the same US military units. I haven't done too many myself and frankly, I aint very good at this! But I checked out your page and it seems we've both been in the Armor branch of the US Army (correct me if I'm wrong - I got that from your M1 quote) and we're both cartographers! However, I've never actually gotten the opportunity to practice cartography since I went into the plastics field after getting my geography degree. Anyway, this is just a shout out to ya, I was in 1-32nd Armor and 5-77th Armor. Cheers! - Wheels0132

  • nope just 12B and cannon cocker, and a real nominclature freak. If i remember right the M1 was supposed to be m803 or somthing. ever since then the Army just pulls numbers out its but. dont know how I got roped into restoring WWII tanks. Brian in denver (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

142nd Infantry Regiment (United States)

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of 142nd Infantry Regiment (United States), and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.texasmilitaryforcesmuseum.org/36division/archives/142/ch001.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regimental articles

Please stop adding these two external links UNLESS THEY MENTION THE REGIMENT YOU'RE CREATING A PAGE FOR

  • Historical register and dictionary of the United States Army, from ..., Volume 1 By Francis Bernard Heitman [2]
  • Encyclopedia of United States Army insignia and uniforms By William K. Emerson (page 51).[3]

And also stop putting CAtegory:Military units and formations established in 1957 onto each page. Fix the correct year ! Buckshot06 (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brian_in_denver&oldid=485592404"