User talk:ERcheck

Home

Talk

Contributions

USMC Portal

Today is Saturday, May 11, 2024; it is now 23:26 (UTC/GMT)

Welcome to my talk page. If you wish to contact me, feel free to leave me a message here. Though I have Wiki e-mail enabled, it is simply a way to contact me when I am offline. I will respond to your messages either here or on your talk page. Please place your message at the bottom of this page. Thanks. —ERcheck

Archives
October 2005 – March 2006 April 2006 – May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October –November 2006 December 2006 January – February 2007 March – April 2007 May – November 2007

---

---

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 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 01:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible DYK

I just put together VMF-217 and was wondering if you could think of an angle to get it on the DYK page? You have 1 or 2 of these under your belt and know better than I what they are looking for or if it has a chance at all. If you are to busy then no worries. Also, I switched out the bio in the Portal this morning.--Looper5920 04:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(I'm an idiot. I meant VMF-215.--!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Looper5920 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Marine units

I've been thinking about reorganizing the various lists of USMC units, and wanted your input on the matter (since you are heavily involved in USMC articles). I spell out my idea here, but here is the gist: I think it would be best to group units together by which component of the MAGTF they fulfill: Ground combat, Aviation, Combat Service Support, Other, and Inactive. This makes five very comprehensive lists, in hierarchical order, and much easier for a civillians to see and understand teh organization of the Corps, as well as make it easy for a Marine to find a specific unit. bahamut0013♠♣ 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that you have asked Looper5920 about this. I defer to his thoughts -- as he has put a huge effort into unit articles, whereas, I've been working the biography side. — ERcheck (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 49	3 December 2007	About the Signpost

Signpost interview: New Executive Director Sue Gardner	Arbitration Committee elections: Elections open
Possible license migration sparks debate	Featured articles director names deputy
Software bug fixed, overuse of parser function curtailed	WikiWorld comic: "Wordplay"
News and notes: Wikipedian honored, fundraiser, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: LGBT studies	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Humbert Roque Versace GA sweep (on hold)

I have reassessed this article as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. We are currently revisiting all listed Good articles in an effort to ensure that they continue to meet the Good article criteria.

In reviewing the article, I came across some minor issues that may need to be addressed; I have left a detailed summary on the article's talk page. As a result I have put Humbert Roque Versace's GA status on hold. This will remain in place for a week or so before a final decision is taken as to the article's status.

I've left this notice here because, from the article history, you have been a significant contributor. If you no longer edit this article, please accept my apologies and feel free to disregard this message ;)

Regards, EyeSerene^TALK 14:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 6 December, 2007, a fact from the article VMF-215, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel 10:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Beckman High School

recently, our teacher showed us wikipedia, and how anybody can edit it. Chaos proceeded. Please ignore any random crap that spills out of it for the next week.

Thank you, student at Beckman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imascrabblefreak (talk • contribs) 04:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on Wikipedia is not ignored. I'm sure that your teacher did not direct students to vandalize the site, nor compromise the integrity of the article about the school. — ERcheck (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of "public domain" templates in References section

Thanks for the info, I wasn't done yet, my intent was to do a few and then go back and add the inline citations. Since were on the subject though I do have a questions about it. Actually 2 questions. The first is when you have 2 sites with like information, like the Marine Corps whos who link and DANFS (for the sake of this we'll say the date and place of birth). Which one takes precedence or should you use both as inline citations. My intent was to use both as citations in case 1 stops working and to help validate the information. The 2nd is along the same lines but in this case its more specific to the Medal of Honor citation. I can list at least 5 sites that display the Medal of Honor citation and I was wondering if it was appropriate to list them all as references and or inline citations. Essentially ending up with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 in brackets after the citation. Thanks in advance.--Kumioko (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Archiving my talk page

Thanks, I have been meaning to do that for a while but I guess now is as good a time as any.--Kumioko (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ethan Place

Sorry about adding Ethan Place to the name of Silver Star awardees. He is an alumni from my highschool, and currently he is our offensive coordinator on the football team. I simply didn't realize that you had to be someone famous, or connected to someone famous to be on the list. I do think that should contain a list of all awardees maybe on a separate page, that has a link on the silver star page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HoltStudent80 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about adding Ethan Place to the list of Silver Star awardees. He is an alumni of my Highschool, and currently is our offensive coordinator. I simply did not realize that you had to be famous or connected to someone famous to be on the list. I think you should consider making a separate page with the whole list of awardees.HoltStudent80 (talk) 06:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Silver Star

Great job on the research! After watching the trolls on the 9/11 talk page today, it's nice to wade back into more interesting issues with experienced editors who know how to communicate their ideas effectively. I've replied to your recommendation on the talk page. However, I wanted to add here that I'm not wedded to my approach. I'm just looking for a solution with a simple formula so we can communicate its logic clearly to others. Thanks again for some very thoughtful work. Rklawton (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 50	10 December 2007	About the Signpost

Wikipedia dragged into German politics over Nazi images	Wales comments on citing Wikipedia produce BBC correction
WikiWorld comic: "Kilroy was here"	News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Greater Manchester
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much for the clarification of ref name vs. ID

A great light dawned, and I'm fixing it in a number of other articles. Thanks so much! Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Osgood

Osgood.

Barnett

Barnett.

• I can fix it later, but I noticed note 4 should be a "d" on the first Edwards reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcberkowitz (talk • contribs) 00:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks -- I have my template now. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Honig is separate from the Whirlwind breakout group, although both dealt with urban operations. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 51	17 December 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: ArbCom elections, holiday publication
Former Wikimedia employee's criminal history detailed	Möller resigns from board, joins foundation as employee
Google announces foray into user-generated knowledge	WikiWorld comic: "Tractor beam"
News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Plants	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

MelanieHarrison/Intellect publishing linkspam

Thought you should know she's at it again, this time from an IP address she's used before. Check the contributions for 81.149.59.110. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

One that needs some work

I came across this article - Matthew Bogdanos - and thought you might be able to clean it up a bit. Thanks for the help cleaning up the new VMF articles--Looper5920 (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Came across another 2 you might find interesting - Norwood Russell Hanson & Orson Swindle.--Looper5920 (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Twinkle

Hi, ERcheck! When I was off fixing some bugs for AzaToth, I may have accidentally left a bug up for three minutes or so where every user would get the "too new" message. Could you please clear your cache and see if works, then get to me on my talk page? Thanks! east.718 at 05:53, December 20, 2007

User talk:Jack Merridew

Thanks, see WP:ANI#I'm being harassed by my old account for the back-story on what going on. If they move over to my user page feel free to s-prot it, too. It has gotten a lot of vandalism, too - but not in a few days. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Melanieharrison, Intellect and all that jazz..

Hey, thanks for you note regarding the subject. I'm afraid my mentoring role clearly hasn't been taken up too well by Ms Harrison who doesn't seem to have grasped the idea of COI or spamming. Shame really. So, as I said at the MfD for her sandbox, as long as someone has asked her to stop spamming and if she intends to do anything furthe with her sandbox, I'll be more than happy for someone to delete the sandbox and, if needed, block her account and her IP from adding more spam. I won't take offence, it's too hot for me to do that! As you're probably aware, I can't do too much, I'm in an internet cafe in Vang Vieng at the moment so not particularly secure for admin work... Let me know what you decide to do (if anything). All the best and thanks again for giving me a shout. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey again, thanks for your response. Damn, these keyboards in Laos are sticky...! Right, your point is a good one, I've gone back to Ms H and suggested that in two weeks from now her sandbox will be summarily removed unless she either rights it or communicates otherwise. I'm not dictating that I should be the offending admin who destroys her work once again, in fact I'd appreciate it if someone with a decent secure login (and decent keyboard) would conclude the act should it be that I'm elsewhere engaged... Cheers again, and happy tidings, all the best at this time of year! The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 12:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

ER

Thanks, I checked the website out. Hey, will I was working on my new project in my workshop "Hispanic in the USMC". I became truly interested in the case of Angel Mendez, who was awarded the Navy Cross in Nam. His family got in contact with me and I'm writing his bio. I waiting for some more info on his early years. Anyway, I would like it if you would drop over by my workshop and at the very end you will find the bio I'm working on (make any fixes). This guy deserves the MoH. Tony the Marine (talk) 07:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

For your watch list in 2008

In 2007, it was announced that Robert Leckie's book Helmet for My Pillow and Eugene B. Sledge's With the Old Breed, would form the basis for the HBO series The Pacific. ISounds like it will be the Marine equivalent to Band of Brothers. With this in mind I thought it might be a good idea to spruce up the articles that may get some added attention because of the series. From looking at the 2 books I would say that 3rd Battalion 5th Marines, 2nd Battalion 1st Marines and 1st Marine Division will be the big unit pages. ALong with the pages for the authors themselves which need some sprucing up I wouldn't be surprised if we need to create one for Andrew Haldane see this and look at Sledge's Book around page 38. He may be the Richard Winters equivalent for a portion of the series. That is all I can think of to start but I am sure this list will expand some in the future.

These are just some initial thoughts. I am sure the miniseries will generate some more traffic on those pages. Let me know what you think. --Looper5920 (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Request

Could you look over Angel Mendez and provide any of the missing links? Thanks. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, I think Angel Mendez will be a good story for the portal. What do you think? Tony the Marine (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

SLF, Looper already took care of it. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Aces Table

We had talked about this earlier and I took about 5 minutes and put a very rough draft together. It can be found in my sandbox. Just scroll down a bit. There is a very good one already available on the net so in order to make this worth it so I am trying to think about what we can do to really make this stand out. The other point to note is that the website only lists 118 aces while the Sherrod book (i.e. the bible for WWII USMC aviation info) lists 120. I'll have to figure out what the deal is. Anyway, take a look and add anything at all you think might make it look better. --Looper5920 (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Coker article

Please do not get into an edit war over this article. or risk violating 3RR. No There is room for discussion, and as this is a BLP issue, it should be discussed before adding to the article. Please keep WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV in mind. There is room for dicussion, which is not the same as censorship. See talk page. — ERcheck (talk) 06:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Edit war?!?! You are creating a very poor picture of yourself by deleting content with one of the lamest excuses for removal and following that up with threats of violating 3RR. Removing sourced material because it doesn't fit with your own personal POV is patently uncivil. Any further removal of sourced content without providing evidence of specific violations of Wikipedia policy will be treated as vandalism. The burden of proof is on you to establish a justification, and so far you've offered nothing. Alansohn (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you want to escalate this to be a personal issue. If you chose to view my attempts to mediate an edit dispute by directing parties to work on the article's talk page to come to a consensus as reflecting poorly on me, that is unfortunate. While you clearly don't agree with my deletion or comments, calling them lame, a jihad, threats, or uncivil is going toward crossing the line on civility and personal attacks. Quoting from relevant Wikipedia policy:

• WP:CIVIL — Civility applies to editing "[articles] and writing edit summaries, comments, and talk page discussions." Calling editors "lame" and referencing "jihad" are not civil comments.
• WP:NPA — Unacceptable comments include "religious, ..., ethnic, or other epithets" Calling an editor's actions a "jihad" is such a personal attack.
• WP:Vandalism — Wikipedia's definition — "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia....Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." My deletion was made in good faith, not as a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. While you threaten to view this as vandalism, it clearly is not according to Wikipedia. I did assume good faith on your part (see my edit summary), did you the courtesy of communicating to you on your talk page to let you know what issues I saw, and did not block you. I did implore you to use the talk page for discussion rather than escalate it to the point that 3RR would be an issue. This was not a threat, it was a reminder.
• WP:BLP — "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." Therefore, the burden of proof that the edits belong belongs on the editor adding the material. I do not have a "personal POV" with respect to this addition — rather, I requested on the talk page that the editors who had a dispute on the content discuss it. I did not take the heavy-handed approach of protecting the page.

The article's talk page is the appropriate place to work towards consensus. I note that Rlevse has been discussing on the talk page and has been working toward a compromise. Your recent addition of a single quote from the documentary seems aimed at making a point

Again, I ask that you remain civil, try to step back from edit warring, work toward consensus, and also assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors. We are here to improve Wikipedia, not harm it. — ERcheck (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Your bias astounds me. Deleting sourced material and making the patently false claim that I have started an edit war is some of the most pathetic interference I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Placing an accusation that someone is starting an edit war on the page of the person who has satisfied the burden of proof by providing sourced material, while carefully refusing to place the same statement on the individual who has made repeated false accusations of WP:BLP violations is bad faith at its most shameless. I understand you have a bias; try to find sources to support it and stop interfering with the addition of sourced material, and stop supporting unjustified removal of sourced material. I have worked towards consensus by offering the blandest, most meaningless statement that clips of Coker appeared in an award-winning documentary. That too was deleted as a WP:BLP violation. I added the quote to satisfy User:User:Rlevse demands for additional contest for the film. Your participation and claims of false threats seems intended to disrupt this article in the clearest possible WP:POINT violation and to hide material that provides a balanced perspective of the article's subject. I offered compromise, and you make threats. You desperately need to examine your actions before making further baseless accusations. Alansohn (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I did not accuse you of starting an edit war. Please re-read the note I left on your talk page. Specifically, my words were "Please do not get into an edit war over this article..." It is a request that you avoid such. No where does it say you started such. I did not say you "violated" BLP, I said there was a BLP issue. This was the case at the time I wrote the note — BLP had been raised by another editor and I requested that "it should be discussed before adding to the article." There was no accusation made or intended with this statement — simply that with BLP issues raised, that the matter needed to be discussed and a consensus reached. My note on your talk page was not meant to accuse you and I'm sorry that you took it that way. Please continue all discussion of the article on the article's talk page. Thank you. — ERcheck (talk) 11:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC) Addendum: Lest there be any doubt, I made no threats against this editor. I choose not to further engage, but rather let Alanshon's tone and words speak for themselves. — ERcheck (talk) 04:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
      • In repsonse to your addendum, jumping in to warn regarding "Please avoid WP:Edit warring and WP:3RR -- WP:BLP concerns & WP:NPOV concerns" as a preemptive strike after deleting a clearly relevant addition to the article is uncivil and abusive of Wikipedia policy, and an apparent effort to intimidate and provoke. You and your article co-owner have repeatedly blocked the addition of information regarding this film to the article, in what clearly seems to be an effort to sanitize the content. As discussed with you, and in the talk page before you intruded in support of your co-owner, there are absolutely no WP:BLP issues, and the excuse User:Rlevse used to delete a mere link to the film "upon subject request" (see here) betrays a clear violation of WP:COI. That you could have added a reference to the Faith of My Fathers film in which Coker is a single word mentioned in passing, while insisting that a reference to Hearts and Minds is inappropriate and lacks context betrays a disturbing inconsistency, to say the least. You demand that prior approval is required before adding material, while you have never discussed any of the changes you have made to the article. It is laughable to read your talk page comment that justifies removing sourced material in reference to "BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." when there is no privacy issue, the material was well-sourced, and you yourself found it necessary to include a passing film mention as encyclopedic without bothering to ask anyone's permission. The NPOV concerns are nonsensical, as they exist equally with the McCain film details you've added, which also has its own NPOV issues that have been left ignored. Overall, the bottom line is that none of the issues you raised have any validity. The most disturbing aspect of your actions are the threats made on my talk page which appear intended to push me away from further editing of the article and to leave the one-sided presentation of the article undisturbed. Your threats speak for themselves. Alansohn (talk) 06:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Depository Trust

Tx for your helpful edits on the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation. Many times people just like to criticize what others do. You however actually go about improving the article. That is wonderful. Merry Christmas.--69.203.81.71 (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)