User talk:CORNELIUSSEON

Welcome!

Hello, CORNELIUSSEON, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 01:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting and Pasting

Please don't just cut and paste text from another website as you have done in many of your articles. Even if you originally wrote it, the style is generally inappropriate here and you have made no efforts in most of your articles to structure according to Wikipedia guidelines or to add links to your text (wikify). You have even created a new article, United States Marshals, when in fact you should have added text to an existing article, United States Marshals Service. Wikipedia is a co-operative effort, not a one-man band. I'm sure you just want to add good content, but please try to do in in our established way, or it just creates massive amounts of work for the rest of us. Thanks. -- Necrothesp 16:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good sir, I noticed as of October 9th you are still engaging in the practice of cutting and pasting, word for word, huge sections of text from other websites (see Adjutant General). Please stop this as it will only lead to copyrigtt violation tags on articles and cause problems. Thanks for your attention. -Husnock 05:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thanks for your note, but I think you are acting under some misapprehensions.

In the first place, I am NOT a Professional "Wikipedian", and I really don't have the time to become one. I am a Retired US Army Staff Sergeant who is within three years of retiring from my second career, and I have taken up the hobby of writing serious work on US Army History. Yes, I use "Cut and Paste", and - in most cases - it is because all of the sites I use are official US Government sites, and most of the websites I get my information from present their own historical information in either a complete form, or in a timeline format. I use what tools you have provided that I can understand on-the-fly [I actually downloaded your user's guide, but it was so technical and convoluted that I finally gave up since I ran out of time. I use a lot of extremely technical software, but nothing is as difficult to use as your Wiki seems to be. It is NOT intuitive, and it seems to be a Compiler as well. Having to repeatedly go between the Composer and the Display to check on one's work is very time consuming. If you want to reformat what I present - you will note that I am always identifying myself as an EDITOR, not an AUTHOR - please feel free. I understand that my stuff is open to re-editing.

In the second place, in cases where I have added information that duplicates information previously placed by others, you will find that that information is normally more detailed than the original information, and I leave that information for the original writer to remove at his discretion.

In the third place, when I have started a similarly named file, you will find that the two files are not totally parallel. One will have been written from a totally different point of view than the other. The file you wanted me to add information to would have seemed to be disjointed with the two different points of view, and structure.

In the fourth place, this is supposed to be an Encyclopedia, and not a source of original writing. People come here to find information that can be used in an academic setting, or just for general knowlege. What I post may be cut-and-paste, but I make sure that what I post reflects the accuracy of the subject that wrote it. By the way, those sites post that information specifically so that it can be used as is. If you change the text, and happen to change the context of that text, you may just get an email from them protesting the change of the context. I am not writing a novel or a short story, I am writing facts and figures, and if the specific government source has not provided those facts and figures, then there are few sources elsewhere where accurate information is available.

BTW, a good example of how difficult this system is, I have yet to find any instructions as to how to make proper use of this message system - it does not operate like an E-Mail system - and thus I must assume that you will be able to read this reply as an addendum to the original message, and I am very sceptical of my assumptions.

BTW, I just looked at what I wrote vis-a-vis Fort Monmouth, and found that all of my information has been erased. I really don't mind criticism, but I do expect that when I am criticized that the critic will put his money where his mouth is by producing a better product using his system as opposed to mine.

SSG Cornelius Seon, NYARNG (Retired)

No, I don't think I'm acting under any misapprehensions. To try to answer your points:

1) None of us are professional Wikipedians. We all devote much of our free time to trying to create a great online encyclopaedia. But we do that co-operatively. Please read our guidelines. Don't just ignore them because you don't feel like reading them. Nobody reads them all, but it's easy enough to get the gist. This is an encyclopaedia. There is no point just adding raw information without editing, formatting or linking it - it's ugly and looks unprofessional. If you haven't got time to do it properly, then please don't do it at all. Somebody will eventually. We don't have the time to edit everything you feel like adding. If you like the info from another website, then post a link to it - don't just cut and paste the whole lot into Wikipedia. As to being complicated, I don't think it is at all, but maybe that's just me (and thousands of other Wikipedians).

2) It's irrelevant that your info is more detailed if you don't edit it properly. Again, this is an encyclopaedia, not a dumping ground for raw information. And by the way, anyone can remove or edit text, not just the original writer. There is no ownership of articles on Wikipedia. That's why we don't sign our work.

3) This is a silly argument. Look at any encyclopaedia. In how many of them do you find two articles on the same subject written from different points of view? Again, if you are not willing to follow our guidelines then don't write. The last thing we want is parallel articles created because someone doesn't agree with the style of the first one. This defeats the whole object of what we're trying to achieve and will make this project utterly pointless - just another forum for people's views and opinions, which is not the point at all. And the best way to annoy people is to start creating new articles because you don't like the old ones. Add and edit; don't try to parallel because you're writing "from a totally different point of view". You shouldn't be writing from a point of view at all. We try to be neutral here. And government websites are rarely neutral, since they push their own worldview (the US Army, for instance, naturally thinks everything about the US Army is wonderful - but that's not neutral, hence one of the main objections to cutting and pasting).

4) Yes, it's an encyclopaedia. That means the articles are written in a consistent, easily readable way, not just cut and pasted from other sites without editing. Wikipedia is not designed to be a site cobbled together from bits of other sites. "If you change the text, and happen to change the context of that text, you may just get an email from them protesting the change of the context." An illogical argument, I'm afraid. We can write what we like on this site. We're not bound by any other site. What we write is generally accurate because of the vigilance of everybody who edits here, not because of some outside force.

5) It's very simple. Since I have written on this page, it will be featured on my watchlist and I will know when you update it. Or you can if you wish reply on my talk page (link in my signature).

6) As I've said, unless the information is properly edited, formatted and linked then it will be removed by someone. If not me then someone else. Trust me. I don't have time to research an article on every subject, but somebody will do eventually. And material simply cut and pasted from elsewhere is not acceptable.

You've also added reams of US Army-specific info to articles (such as Combat engineering) that are not country-specific, thereby unbalancing the whole article in favour of the USA. This, you will rapidly discover, people from other countries get very up-in-arms about. It's more appropriate on pages created specifically about the US Army's individual corps, which are fine.

Please continue to contribute to Wikipedia, but do try to fit in with others' work and not just branch out on your own. Thanks. -- Necrothesp 03:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, 9/13/02

Cutting to the chase, as I've said elsewhere on Wikipedia, you actually have a problem when you write stuff that makes use of US Government generated graphics - and you have a LOT of US Government generated graphics on Wikipedia. The item at the bottom of this reply is the Copyright Notice from the US Army Institute of Heraldry. It is virtually identical to the Copyright Page for the similar Institutes for the Navy, Air Force, and the Coast Guard, as well as similar organizations for the other executive departments of the US Government. Working in collaboration with me can insure that you remain on the right side of this issue since I already have a working relationship on this subject due to my years of service as a Staff Sergeant in the US Army and NY Army National Guard, and the research I've had to do on a book I am preparing. For example, even though you are in violation according to Wikipedian rules, you are NOT in violation according to US Government rules. Under those rules, Wikipedia is not using the graphics for commercial purposes, someone else who comes online and downloads them and goes off to use them for commercial purpose is the one in actul violation under the law, and they would be the person(s) that the US Government would go after. The reason for that is the fact that the US Government WANTS the graphics to achieve the widest possible dissemination within the limits of the established rules, and they depend on people like me - persons from the inside who understand the rules as they apply to all concerned - to facilitate that dissemination.

To my knowledge, I have never used any graphics from US government websites. Neither do I have any desire to. As to the copyright status, it is my understanding that Wikipedia, as a non-commercial site, is entitled to use these images. We are not in violation of Wikipedia rules if we use such images. If somebody uses them for a commercial purpose, then they, as you say, are the ones who are in violation, which is irrelevant to Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp 18:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, by your own admission, we have the same expressed point of view. My interest is that the information be posted accurately and completely, without any form of editorial comment, and that is what I establish by posting the information without any editorial comment of any kind. If I take what the USAIOMH and other such sites post and post it as-is, I've achieved that committment. If I take what they post and re-write it into some sort of storyline, I've strayed from that committment, and we end up with a point of view.

But don't you understand that the US Government already has a point of view on its websites? All governments have points of view and all make them pretty obvious on their websites. I know mine (UK) does. That's why we rewrite, to eliminate that POV and to make the article fit in with the way we do things. The websites of government agencies, like all other organisations, tend to be written in a bombastic aren't-we-wonderful style that is wholly inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. You served in the US Army and probably think a lot of it; I served in the British Territorial Army and think a lot of the British Armed Forces, but I wouldn't put that attitude in an article, because it's not neutral. By their very definition, government websites do express that attitude. -- Necrothesp 18:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As to the information I posted on the US Army Corps of Engineers [USACE], I started off on a Country-Specific page - US Army - and it sent me off the page you said that I overbalanced. I really did not want to use that page, but you left me little choice. The page you had on USACE was totally inaccurate since it stated that the Combat Engineer functions and the Civil Government Engineer functions were being handled by two seperate organizations is totally wrong. There is only ONE organization, the US Army Corps of Engineers, and it has two constitutionally mandated functions: (1) Provide engineering guidance and espertese of all types to the US Government and the State Governments; and (2) Provide Combat Engineering expertese to the US Department of Defense. The two functions are not mutually exclusive, and there are no actual constitutional walls between them. In fact, as a means of explaining this, the functions of cleaning up the destruction of Hurricane Katarina falls to the Combat Engineer part of USACE, while the repair of the broken waterways falls to the Civil Engineering part of USACE. Under the US Constitution, the stewardship of all navigable domestic waterways and the Coastline within the limits of the Union is the responsibility of the Civil Engineering part of USACE. Everything else falls to the Combat Engineering part of USACE. Nevertheless, there is only ONE USACE.

So, rewrite the USACE page with the accurate information. That's the point of Wikipedia. It's a collaborative effort. If someone gets something wrong then someone else can come along and correct it. Nobody has copyright here. Everyone's work gets edited and changed, hopefully for the better. I also don't quite understand why you keep saying that you (referring to me) do things ("you left me little choice"). Nobody has authority here - we work together. I'm really not sure you've grasped the point of this website. If we see something we don't like then we change it. If somebody disagrees then they change it back. If this degenerates into an editing war (and it really very rarely does, despite occasional appearances to the contrary) then we discuss it on the talk pages. It may sound odd, but believe me, it does work. -- Necrothesp 18:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome to the Institute of Heraldry Web Site. The purpose of this site is to provide information on United States Army heraldic entitlements; how they are displayed, and how and why it is worn.

PLEASE NOTE: The images of all badges, insignia, decorations and medals on this web site are protected by Title 18, United States Code, Section 704 and the Code of Federal Regulations (32 CFR, Part 507). Permission to use these images for commercial purposes must be obtained from The Institute of Heraldry prior to their use.

All subjects are linked to respective pages

We welcome your comments and suggestions. Contact us: The Institute of Heraldry via email

or via:

Interactive Customer Evaluation

or at:

The Institute of Heraldry

9325 Gunston Rd, Room S-112 Ft Belvoir, Virginia 22060-5579

1-703-806-4972

Topics

- Army National Guard, ROTC, and Miscellaneous pages

- Band Regalia

- Beret Flashes and Background Trimmings

- Civilian Awards and Decorations

- Distinctive Unit Insignia, Shoulder Sleeve Insignia and Coats of Arms

- Flags and Guidons

- Frequently Asked Questions

- Campaign Streamers

- Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps (JROTC) Schools

- U.S. Army and Department of Defense Decorations

- U.S. Army Awards, Decorations, Campaign and Service Medals (Order of Precedence)

- U.S. Army Badges

- U.S. Army Branches of Service (Insignia and Plaques)

- U.S. Army Insignia of Rank

- U.S. Army Service, Campaign Medals and Foreign Awards

Purple Heart

Thanks for your recent addition to the Purple Heart article. Some of the material was removed as it duplicates info in Badge of Military Merit. I encourage you to visit that article and update as desired. Also, image copyright tags are generally placed on images only and not in the actual articles. You can click on the image itself to go to the image page. -Husnock 03:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.- I moved all the info you wrote about the three Revolutionary Soldiers who got the Badge of Military Merit to thier own articles. See Badge of Military Merit for the links. -Husnock 03:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

September 29, 2005 Reply

A word on the tags. The tag I included on the Purple Heart article is the proper tag to use for both the article and the images since both are from the US Army Institute of heraldry. The person mentioned in the article who designed the modern medal was working for the group that is today the Institute of Heraldry. While I am at it, all images of US Government Heraldic Items are the product of the US Army Institute of Heraldry, and thus the Copyright Tag should be theirs. The US Marine Corps - which certainly can produce photographs - did not design or produce the Medal.

As has been pointed out before, the article is not copyrighted to anyone, and therefore should not have a copyright tag on it. That's one of the reasons we don't just cut and paste articles from other websites! And an image is copyrighted to whoever took it, not to the person or organisation who designed or produced its subject. -- Necrothesp 15:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The National Personnel Records Center also has a huge database of military medal and badge images which, as far as I know (I work there) are not copyrighted and open to public domain. Most of the medals and badges pictures on Wikipedia have been uploaded from NPRC (Military Personnel Records Center). So it would not be correct to say IOH has a blanket copyright on all such images. -Husnock 17:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 1, 2005 Reply

You need to read the IOH's Copyright Notice, as follows:

Welcome to the Institute of Heraldry Web Site. The purpose of this site is to provide information on United States Army heraldic entitlements; how they are displayed, and how and why it is worn.

PLEASE NOTE: The images of all badges, insignia, decorations and medals on this web site are protected by Title 18, United States Code, Section 704 and the Code of Federal Regulations (32 CFR, Part 507). Permission to use these images for commercial purposes must be obtained from The Institute of Heraldry prior to their use.

in short, while it is proper to copyright a photograph to the person who made it, nonetleless the original copyright for the item being displayed belongs to the IOH.

You can't copyright an object in this way, otherwise we couldn't take photos of anything without obtaining the owner's permission. All architectural photography, for instance, would become illegal without the permission of the building's owner! You can copyright a design, so that it can't be copied and sold by someone else, but you can't copyright images of the object unless you've taken them. -- Necrothesp 23:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  My point remains that if you make copies of the PHOTOGRAPH,
  and distribute them without the Photographer's permission, then 
  you are infringing on the rights of the Photographer. However,
  if you use the photograph to reproduce the ITEM displayed
  therein, and COMMERCIALIZE the item, then you are
  infringing on the rights of the Institute of Heraldry.

But since we're not "commercializing the item" (whatever that means), this is an irrelevance. The photograph itself will already have a copyright tag on it. I'm therefore not sure what your point is. -- Necrothesp 13:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 2, 2005 Reply

The reason for the IOH tag is to warn those who download the item from Wikipedia that they have to apply to IOH if they want to make any kind of profit from the item. Commercialize means that you take an item that normally has only a nominal profit value, and do what is necessary to increase that value, and then sell the item to realize the profit. CORNELIUSSEON

Yes, yes, I understand the English definition. I just think it's inappropriate in this context. I think you're taking this much too far. We don't need a tag on every single bloody article telling readers they can't copy the item described for profit. That would be ludicrous. -- Necrothesp 10:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my original statement that image copyright tags don't belong in articles to begin with. Adding them to an image is fine, if justified, but articles on Wikipedia are not subject to the copyrights of the images displayed within. There is also a very complicated and strict process for declaring an image a copyright violation and having it removed from the Wiki database. That said, an article will never be removed jsut becuase it contains a copyright violation image. The article will simply be edited to remove the image. As far as this IOH debate goes, NPRC is considered a routine user of military records and associated resources. Images in the database of the Military Personnel Records Center have been cleared for public distribution (free of charge). So, any image uploaded to this site from the NPRC database should not have a copyright issue as its been cleared by both IOH and NPRC for public use. With all that said, time to move on and lets all get back to writing good articles. -Husnock 21:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personal info on Wikipedia

I noticed you have created a user page and wanted to give some friendly advice about putting your real name, e-mail, and where you live for all to see. Don't do it!. it invites vandals, virus senders, and God knows who else. I used to have my personal e-mail on my Wiki User page, a long time ago, and was hit hard with several viruses and e-mail attacks. Thank goodness nothing that actually managed to harm my computer. In addition, putting your real name and where you live is a very bad idea. Just to give you some idea, based on what you have up now, I could use a variety of search engines and reverse lookup software to find a street address and/or telephone number. Not that I would do that, but other not-so-nice folks could. Anyway, just giving out some advice. Take it as you like. Best. -Husnock 21:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thanks. I've removed the obvious items, although I may restore my email address.

CORNELIUSSEON 23:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

United States

Howdy. Please don't add unnecessary headers and horizontal lines to United States or other articles. The style for intro paragraphs is pretty consistent across Wikipedia; the intro contains an overview of the article and does not have a section header. The horizontal lines are not needed; section breaks provide enough whitespace for separation. See WP:MOS for more detail than you'll ever need for style guidelines for articles. Thanks, android 79 15:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems with your premise, and the United States article is a prime example.

First of all, introductions are supposed to be brief, and basically give the reader a synopsis of what the author is presenting in the followup detail. Unfortunately, the Introduction in the United States article is quite large and dense. This makes the United States article hard to read, and - even worse - hard to edit and expand since much of the detail in the introduction is to be found in the detailed sections as well.

Second of all, the section breaks should be added to, not subtracted from, since they result in a very easily navigated table of contents. Again, this makes the article more useful to the reader since the reader will not need to pore over the article, searching for the information he/she seeks.

Another point is the fact the seperation of the introduction into a seperate section provides those users who just want concise information for school assignments with most of what they seek in one area.

CORNELIUSSEON 17:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the intro is too detailed, the solution is to remove the detailed information, not to create a pseudo-introduction after the introduction. Believe me, I've been involved in efforts to remove excessive detail from that intro. Too often it just expands again later. That said, a long and complex article is going to have a long introduction. You can't remove too much.

I'm not sure what your point is about the section breaks – I just don't want to see horizontal lines (----) where they're not needed; section headers provide enough break between sections without needing another line. More sections is always good, if that's what you're getting at. android 79 17:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The solution to the too-long introduction may be to let the introduction be a list of topic links that lead to monographs that deal with the subject.. I understand fuuly about articles growing by leaps and bounds through their own effort.

CORNELIUSSEON 20:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Named campaigns of the United States Army

I think the section you added on "Named Campaigns" of the United States Army threatens to overwhelm the page, even with just the American Revolutionary War battles. The section is long enough to be an article in its own right, linked to from a much shorter section on decorations (or history--I'm not sure where you're going). The paragraphs on each battle can be pruned down substantially, moving the details to the pages on the individual battles. See Category:Battles of the American Revolutionary War.
—wwoods 06:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to your assessment, but I wasn't sure how you wanted to handle it. You are correct about there being sufficient text for a new article that is linked to the main document.

As to where I am going, I have access to the Center for Military History's list of named campaigns, and the Institute of heraldry's Campaign Streamers, and together they make a great adition to the story on the Army.

I'll move the campaign information to a seperate page immediately, and flesh it out as I go along.

CORNELIUSSEON 07:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of New York counties

Hello. I see you've been doing some editing in the List of New York counties article. But I'm not sure what direction you're going in. Was there a reason you decided to delete so much of the information that was already in the article? And why are you including counties from other states? If it's because they are now in territory that was once part of New York, you might want to list them in a seperate section. Your source section also seems a little confusing; what exactly are you citing with these links? MK2 04:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I agree with the above comment. I'm not convinced of the utility of your changes. In particular, it looks like no longer provides a list of currently extant counties, mixing the defunct ones in? Also there are some links to articles that look strange - why is there a link linking 'Deale' to Sussex, Delaware? I would revert you, but I thought I'd give you a chance to explain the changes since you seem to have put a lot of work into it. Thanks, Morwen - Talk 12:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am using original sources to provide the information I am posting. New Netherlands included all of the county area I am posting, the British established the counties I added when they first took control of New Netherlands. New jersey, Delaware and Pennsylvania were carved out of New York AFTER it was established. and those counties I show were dependent on new York until the other Colonies were up and running. Likewise with the counties that that resulted in Vermont and Maine. New York established them, and then they were transferred to Maine when it was transferred to Massachusetts.

My design for those primary sources are seperate footnote pages for the original sources.

My secondary source is

New York : Atlas of Historical County Boundaries : Compiled by Kathryb Ford Thorne : John H. Long, Editor (1988)

This book is based on the original sources, and has a complete bibliography of them, and has much information you don't have in yours.

As for the change in the format, I have shortened the main page so that it is easier to read, and easier to click on the links. As it is , you have duplicated the information contained in the seperate County pages, and you waste Kilobytes.

Next of all Yorkshire was never a County, but a Shire of the British sort, and it was formed from the Patroonship that the Dutch set up prior to their turning the whole area over to the British. Specifically, this was the area that is today the land from marble Hill up to the Westchester/Dutchess border. which today includes Yonkers and Livingston manor.

BTW, Deale, New York was the second name for the area today known as Sussex, Deleware. The original name was Hoarkill, new Netherlands

Dukes, New York was the county set up to organize Martha's Vinyard and Nantucket before they were turned over to massachusetts on October 7, 1691.

CORNELIUSSEON 18:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where information about past counties that were once part of New York could be part of this article. But I think there needs to be a clear distinction made between the current counties and any past ones to avoid confusion. I'd suggest a seperate section if you're going to include counties that are now parts of other states. As for the information that's duplicated, I think it's better to have it all accessible here in one article rather than forcing a reader to look it up in 65 seperate articles. We have the kilobytes to spare. MK2 20:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We are both right. I originally did my own work as you are doing yours, but then I was told by others here that articles should be as concise as possible to avoid making them hard to read due to overloading of information. Also, there is a subroutine that inserts a popup that says that articles are larger then a set number of Kilobytes, and it suggests segmentatioin.

CORNELIUSSEON 21:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire

Hi. We already had an article about Yorkshire in New York. I redirected your article to it. You reverted this. Now we have two different articles about the same place under different names. Please don't do this again. Morwen - Talk 01:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note, by this I don't mean that we have to have the article at the name it is now. Maybe yours is better. I don't know. But if we want to move it we can (and should) move it, rather than have two articles about the same thing. Morwen - Talk 02:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the fact that you are talking about a County of Yorkshire in New York - which is certainly to be found in some secondary sources, but I was writing about the Shire of yorkshire, which was based on a Dutch Patroonship. The yorkshire I am writing about was NEVER a county. I established mine as Yorkshire (Shire), New York to avoid the problem of the disambiguation page that exists on the subject of Yorkshire. It seems that there are more than two pages under the Yorkshire name, and there are other locations in New York State to this day under the yorkshire name. I will look at the locations you talk about, and see which one needs to be moved.

CORNELIUSSEON 02:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1.Infanterie-Division

I've stumbled on the article you started and it seems a bit poor not only in content but also in form. Do you have plans for completing the article? If not, maybe it would be best if it was marked for deletion. --Mecanismo | Talk 22:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do intend to add to it, but it is also a stub and can use some work - as will the rest of the German Army from World War II. My at-hand information is from the 1944 Order of Battle, and not much is contained therein other than basic information.

If you can create a stub template for the 1944 German Army, I can use it for this article and its future relatives.

CORNELIUSSEON 06:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

quick question

Why did you add this to the 1st Cavalry Division (United States) page?--Kross | Talk 10:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New York State Constitutions

Hi! I spotted your contribution Constitution of New York, 1777 and wanted to say thank you for adding it to Wikipedia. Two notes: I moved it from CONSTITUTION OF NEW YORK, 1777 because we generally try to keep article names in "sentence case" rather than in all-caps. Also, a large chunk of the article is an original source document. On Wikipedia, we try to stick to original prose, rather than primary source transcriptions. Therefore, the text of the constitution itself in the article is a candidate to be moved to WikiSource. I'll probably do that in the next couple of days, as soon as I figure how! :) Thanks for the annotations. All very useful and will remain part of the 'cyclopedia. Thank you! jengod 19:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself is the actual first new York State Constitution, and it deserves being where it is just as much as the US Constitution does, and you will find the US Constitution on Wikipedia. Yes, the backbone article is in more-or-less original prose, but you will find all of the articles and the amendments in their original source text as well.

There are other secondary and tertiary articles for the US Constitution. I'd be willing to try my hand at processing the 1777 New York Constitution in that fashion - with your help - but I think it does not need to be moved.

CORNELIUSSEON 02:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NYC water supply

Thanks for starting this article! I've been meaning to do it as part of my informal Catskill project but this is a good start.

However' ... we may not be able to use those NYCDEP graphics because we have to be sure that they're public domain. Could you check that next time? Daniel Case 22:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also ... as good as the DEP text is for our purposes, as someone told you above you should be careful to avoid the sort of cut-and-paste job like you did at Ashokan Reservoir. Not that it didn't work, but sometimes it doesn't and there might still be copyright problems. Daniel Case 22:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you look closely, you will see that I used one of the Public Domain tags on the DEP graphics, which I posted over on Commons from the wizard. However, I can say that NYC follows the US Government's lead on Copyright.

BTW, if the tag did not load properly, then there is a problem with the upload wizard.

CORNELIUSSEON 03:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good to know that about copyright. But the tag isn't loading right. What's on the image pages now is the big tag saying it will be deleted if this isn't cleared up.

What tag did you pick off the upload wizard? Daniel Case 06:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On a hunch, I did some closer digging, and I found that the DEP has announced that they have some 3rd party images on their site that are copyrighted, and therefore I will make sure that only those images clearly identified as DEP images will be uploaded. This is along the same lines as the US Government, since they also have the right to maintain the Copyright of images in their collection that came with copyright protection. The same caveat about commercial use applies as well (I created some tags for Wikimedia that accurately identify the Copyright status of US Government images. These are the tags for the US Army Institute of Military History, US Army Cenbter for Military History, and the US Army Military History Institute.)

I corrected the tag problem on the three DEP maps, and will check closer for any more I upload.

CORNELIUSSEON 18:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New York copyrights

Works published by New York City (as well as New York State) are copyrighted, and cannot be used on Wikipedia at all. This is a completely different situation from works published by the U.S. federal government, which are PD. Unfortunately, because you apparently did not realize this, we are going to have a lot of cleaning up to do. Please do not post text or images from New York City or State government websites again. Thanks.--Pharos 14:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Glad we cleared that up. I felt that we'd need our own text and images anyway. Daniel Case 05:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Francis du Pont

Just curious, why did you remove the italics from all the ship names? I thought it was proper form to have those italicized. Postdlf 03:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the first place, the name of a United States Navy ship includes the "USS (United States Ship)" prefix. Ships which belong to the US Army (Yes the Army does own some ships) use "USA" for US Army Ship. Ships owned by the Army or the Navy, but operated by DOD's Military Sealift Command, use "USNS (US Naval Ship)". The same ship, with the same name, changes the prefix according to who operates her. Even civilian ships use a prefix all the time. Originally, only civilian sailing vessels did not use a prefix. All civilian ships that use steam as a propulsion force - regardless of the process that generates that steam - properly use the prefix "SS" for Steam Ship. Ships that use other propulsion systems use the more generic "MV" for motor Vessel.

As to the loss of the italics, they have always been optional. Indeed, the military never uses italics to indicate the name of a ship, but stops at either underlining or boldfacing the name. This is a quirk that dates back to the use of the Typewriter before the use of the computer. Typewriters don't have a character for Italics, and the use of Quotation Marks had to sufffice. This lead to the possibility of confusion between real Quotes, and Italics. Thus, Italics were not used.

It has been the press, and others in the civilian world, that have made such Italicization "standard", and this is because they apply the normal rule for Proper Nouns. Both are correct as far as they go. I am a retired Army Staff Sergeant, and have followed the military tradition.

CORNELIUSSEON 05:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

504 PIR articles

hi -- I see you've been adding an impressive amount of detail about the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment. I would caution you, however, that adding detail in lots of small articles is unusual, and I'm not sure if it's appropriate to do it that way. Are there more to come? Could they perhaps be merged into one large article, something like 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment campaign details? I'm not an expert, and I can't speak for how anyone else sees them, but I fear you may end up merging them later if someone decides they need to be deleted. Perhaps a discussion on the 504 PIR Talk page would be a good way to address this? best, bikeable (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I'm willing to do it either way. I did it this way to avoid the issue of overloading the main article, but I am willing to merge them into one article if that works too.

My other reason for doing the detail in small bits has to do with the fact that I find long articles hard to read, and lots of detail get lost when someone has to scroll down, eventually having to use a search function to find specific detail. Again, since you appear to be the original Author, I am willing to work with you in this.

CORNELIUSSEON 04:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hi -- I'm definitely not the original author, nor am I even particularly knowledgable on this subject. I just saw the pages being created an wanted to preempt the possibility that it's not the right way to do it and they get deleted down the road. I would suggest that you post a note on Talk:504th Parachute Infantry Regiment and see what other people who are attached to that page think. good luck! bikeable (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haiti

Wait, wait, the largest airborne invasion in history... for Haiti? Gazpacho 04:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is straight from the horse's mouth, and is included in their official history, which is my source. I was still in service at the time (I retired in 1993), and kind of doubt it myself since there were not very many true Airborne soldiers in the ranks. At the time, the 82nd and 101st were the only two Airborne Divisions active, and the only other Airborne forces active - not counting the Rangers and the Special Forces - was the 173rd Airborne Brigade.

CORNELIUSSEON 04:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of African Americans

Man, I just noticed your edits: absolutely wonderful. I haven't had much time on Wikipedia, and I am almost through with my really big project on this. We are so indebted to you, thank you for what you have done.

Take care, I will try to start back working on that article soon.ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 04:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: John Lesesne DeWitt

I tagged it because the article actually does need cleanup. For the reasons, I stated them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanup#January_17_2006

copyediting
wikification

I'm putting the tag back until the article meets Wikipedia's quality standards. --Thorri 13:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did not state what is wrong with the article, you just threw two labels at me and walked off.

What is wrong with the copy? Saying Copyediting is not helpful. Be specific. I cannot read your mind. The copy looks fine to me. I tried to use the Bio Infobox, but it doesn't work right.

What does Wikification mean? That is NOT a proper English word, and you certainly haven't defined it for me. As far as I am concerned, I've dressed up the text so that it resembles other biographical articles I've seen elsewhere on this site.

Since you insist on being dense and unhelpful, I'll leve the tag where you have placed it until you answer my questions, and even then I won't gurantee that I will make the changes unless I agree with your assessment.

CORNELIUSSEON 14:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to get rid of the bullet points for a start. This is an encyclopaedia, not a manual. The term Wikification is commonly used on Wikipedia, so Thorri was perfectly correct to use it. -- Necrothesp 14:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bullet points have a purpose, especially in terms of the lineage and Honors information. 100% of the time, the US Army Center of Military History uses the Lineage and Honors Certificate verbatum, and that certificate NEVER adds any specifics to its information. In that case, it is useful to use the bullet points to identify a skeleton item that can be fleshed out by other writers. Another point: There is no such thing here as a Paragraph Marker. Give us a Paragraph Marker, that will format the text into coherent paragraphs, and I will stop using the Bullet Point for that purpose.

CORNELIUSSEON 22:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, all you need to do is write in paragraphs and the text will appear in paragraphs. Very simple. You don't need any special tags or markers. WYSIWYG. I'm mystified as to your point about bullet points - the reasons you give (to show other editors that it needs fleshing out) are exactly why the cleanup tag was put on the article in the first place, which you then complained about! -- Necrothesp 01:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with the text per se, but you should take a closer look on other articles and see what is wrong with the general layout of your article. I am sorry if I have offended you in any way but as Necrothesp said, this is an encyclopedia. --Thorri 17:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are more problems than that. Much of it comes verbatim from here at the Army Quartermaster Foundation website. Since it's not a US government site, copyright applies ("Copyright ©2005 by Army Quartermaster Foundation, Inc.") - so unless there's permission, it needs either removal or a radical rewrite. Tearlach 01:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: on reflection, since you appear not to be taking advice seriously, I've tagged it as copyvio for the above reasons. Tearlach 01:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Quartermaster Foundation gets their information from the US Army Center of Military History - which is THE primary source where most such information is found - and thus while they can copyright the website, they cannot copyright the information. For your information, it is rare for military units to attempt original writing when it comes to their Lineage and Honors. They tend to lean heavily on the information put together by the CMH, so it should not come as a shock to find the same information - word for word - at several websites, just as you will find the same information - word-for-word - in print media and film media. The way to spot the CMH footprint is to look for key words like Constituted, Organized, Inactivated, etc. These keywords will tell you that the information came from the original Lineage and Honors Certificate that was created for the unit. Often, this information will be fleshed out with specifics, but the original certificate remains the original source. As to the layout, I've noticed that there is no single format for layout on Wikipedia. That said, I've been working - slowly - on reorganizing military articles to a single format which has to have some flexibility since not all units have identical sets of information, and a lot of units have been married to other units at various times in their histories. I've started to find well made tools that have made my organizing job a snap, and I make use of them when I find them. If you technocrats keep on manufacturing the tools, I will use them. One word of warning, however, PLEASE make them easy to use and intuitive. I am NOT a Technocrat, and any tool that is hard to use will not get used.

CORNELIUSSEON 22:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

they cannot copyright the information.

True, but copyright applies not to information, but to the particular way a writer expresses it as text. Since I can't find that exact text at the CMH site, it looks as if the Quartermaster Foundation wrote the version in question, and so it comes under their copyright. Tearlach 02:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link that uses the CMH information, and is under the CMH copyright:

John Lesesne DeWitt

CORNELIUSSEON 19:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The text at the above link is in two sections: the first uncredited, the second "Courtesy of the U.S. Army Quartermaster Museum". What part comes from the CMH? The easiest way round this is just to rewrite, drawing on both. Tearlach 23:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was dumbfounded at what you just said. the Quartermaster Museum is located at the following URL:

[1]

If you go look at the URL line, you will find that it has the .mil Domain which indicates that it is an official US Military website - in this case Fort Lee in Virginia. As such, ALL of the information is from the CMH, since the Quartermaster Museum is under the command and oversignt of the CMH, as are ALL Army museums. ultimately, all such collections belong to CMH, and wold revert to their custody should a museum like the Quartermaster Museum close. As such, it is a courtesy for the QM to post the information on their site, but that only is true since they are making acess to the information easier than it would be if users had to go to CMH directly. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 19:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Template:Infobox Biography

Your edits on this page resulted in full-size images appearing in articles. (The image at Rosa Parks took up nearly the entire width of the screen.) I couldn't figure out what you were trying to do there and have simply reverted. - Banyan Tree 15:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you go look at the following page, you will see what the bio info box does on my page John Lesesne DeWitt.

CORNELIUSSEON 11:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I couldn't figure it out myself, but asked at Template talk:Infobox Biography#Caption disappeared and somebody else fixed it. Cheers, Banyan Tree 18:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This brings up a pet peeve of mine: There seems to be little standardization here on the Wikimedia sites. tools that work one way on onef site work differently on other sites. This is a bad idea because it ups the confusion and the level of difficulty, and makes users just frustrated enough to abandon efforts.

CORNELIUSSEON 19:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have some specific examples, you might bring some attention to them by posting to the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). - Banyan Tree 21:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

CORNELIUSSEON 01:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph H. Harper

I just created a stub on Joseph H. Harper (401st GIR CO and then 327th GIR CO) and would appreciate if you have any information on his early years or post-war asssignments, if you could add that. I'll be doing more research, of course, but my quick checks of CMH didn't give anything but the "Nuts" story (of which I found lots of variations) and Clay Blair doesn't give his background in Ridgway's Paratroopers, which is my best secondary source on hand these days. --Habap 22:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted tha bare bones Lineage and Honors for the 327th Infantry Regiment, and will do the same for the 401st Infantry RTegiment as soon as I have the time.

CORNELIUSSEON 20:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found these links to information on Harper. You may find it interesting and useful. Go to each of them, and then do a Control-F search for his name.

FIRST ACTION AT MARVIE

The V Corps Lodgment

VIII Corps Attempts To Delay the Enemy

The Growth of the Airmobile Concept

Thanks. Sadly, I'd already seen the first three and the last one only adds one piece of information (that he served as Commandant of the Infantry School). I think I'm going to have to buy more books or go up to Carlisle to get more information. --Habap 19:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is any help, the CMH is putting most of their World War II works online. Before you make the trip, go to the CMH site,and do a dedicated search. The primary problem is the fact that he was NOT a major figure - just one of the many million of competent soldiers who came, did their job, and then exited the stage mostly unoticed. I'll keep loking as I get the time.

CORNELIUSSEON 19:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Please be more carefuly about how you make Wikipedia pages. You can't just cut-and-paste text from other sources, as you did on Fort Hood History. Thank you. --Cyde Weys 23:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can, when the information is in the Public Domain, and the information in this case is direct from the Fort Hood History article posted by Fort Hood. There is NO Copyright in this case. --CORNELIUSSEON 23:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if that is actually the case the proper thing to do would be to add the original as an external link and format the text correctly for Wikipedia. --Cyde Weys 23:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you would let me finish editing it, you might find out that - first - that this article is a fuller version of one that is linked to this page. That page - done by someone else - is a very short summary on Fort Hood, and this one is the longer version. I would have buried the data in the original file, except that it seemed to me that it belongs here so that those who read the original article, and want more information, can come here from the link in the original page. BTW, the original author of the Fort Hood page is free to make use of whatever he finds here, including wholesale incorporation if he wishes.

CORNELIUSSEON 23:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit histories

Could you start entering information in the Edit Summary box when you make changes? That way, others editing don't have to go look at the diffs to see what change you made and we get more of an idea what changes have been made when looking at the article history. You're putting in a lot of work, and it is appreciated. --Habap 14:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind sentiment. Sure, I can add summaries. I have to confess that I find that I get so into doing the work that I completely overlook the explanation of what it is I am doing.

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 14:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Army posts

As I mentioned on the project talk page, I've removed the link to Category:United States Army posts from the main project page. A single category link isn't a particularly helpful form of guideline, unfortunately; we should really try to work something more substantial out, rather than using the project page (which is fairly high-visibility) as a sandbox. Sorry for any trouble with this; I hope it isn't too much of an inconvenience. —Kirill Lok s hin 23:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You acted in haste. I started to post links to all of the existing categories, both here and over on the Commons - that provide access to files that are central to this project. The categories over on the Commons give us access to graphic images that are useful in articles here on Wikipedia, while the categories which are located here give easy access to our files. I have said all along that we need a directory of files both here on Wikipedia and over on the Commons, and that was what I started to do. If you had asked me what I was doing before you acted, we could have prevented your hasty action. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 00:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all hasty, in my opinion. The "Guidelines" section is intended for guidelines about categorization, for fairly obvious reasons. You may be correct in that we need a (hopefully concise) list of useful categories, but that is hardly the best place for them. —Kirill Lok s hin 01:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a further note, I've created a sub-section entitled "Useful categories" in the "Resources" section that I think would be a more appropriate place for the directory you envision. Would such a structure be acceptable to you? —Kirill Lok s hin 01:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind and clear thinking. I'll make use of your contribution right away.

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 00:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting and pasting

Please do not cut-and-paste text, even from sources in the public domain. That's primarily what external links are for. Oberiko 23:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to re-write what I posted, please feel free, but be sure to keep the facts straight. If you compare what you wrote, and what I posted, you will see a lot of gaps in your information, and a lot of mis-stated facts. For the record, the CMH and the IOH deliberately post their files so that they are useful for historians as is, or re-written, as the user desires. This is a collaberative effort, and so I expect you to dress up what is here to make things better, not waste your time finding fault with contributors who volunteer their time and effort. If you don't like what I say, then re-write to suit your ego. Just be sure to keep the facts straight.

00:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well done

Just to say dispitr all the talk and sugestions on this page, you have put in a lot of work and time to Wilkipedia. It does't go unnotice. Thank you. ant_ie 23:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind remarks. I find the whole Wikimedia project to be exactly what the Internet was designed for. As to the various carpers who have plenty of time to complain, but little time to contribute, I don't intend to let them dissuade my efforts. I really am having a lot of fun passing on what I've learned over the years, and I also like the fact that this project forces me to learn new things in order to keep on contributing useful articles. Thanks again.

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 00:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USMC Battalions

Do you think that United States Marine Corps battalions might be a better category then Separate Battalion...--Looper5920 21:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like the Army, the Marine Corps has two forms of battalions: Separate and Organic. Indeed, the Marine Corps has always borrowed its organization from the Army. Separate Battalions are fully capable of operating away from higher headquarters, and normally are attached or assigned to any higher headquarters. Organic Battalions are identified by the notation 1st Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, and are dependent on the administrative overhead of the Regiment for all purposes. 1st Tank Battalion is clearly not an organic part of a higher headquarters, whereas 1st Battalion, 1st Marine Armor Regiment - if such a unit existed - would be clearly organic. Organic units do NOT have a seperate identity away from the Regiment, except when such battalions are mixed and matched in modern higher organizations. Even then, they are still organic to their parent regiment, and are so identified . There is room for both in the Marine Corps.SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 21:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I was getting at is that since the USMC is such a small force there is no need to make the distinction between separate and organic battalions. It is an unnecessary distinction to make and will only make it harder for someone who is unfamiliar with them. There are only 26 infantry battalions in the USMC and even if you add arty, tanks, tracks and everyone else it would all fit onto 1 category page.--Looper5920 22:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that there have NEVER been more than 26 Infantry Battalions in the USMC at any time in the past? Don't forget that you will have to get ALL USMC Infantry Battalions that have ever existed on the same Category page. Also, there is no need to establish seperate pages for Organic Battalions, since they are integral parts of the Regiment they belong to, and normally don't have a separate historyfrom the Regiment.SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 22:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 26 active duty Inf Bns. The deactivated ones should go on a separate page. You would be wrong on the last part as many battalions have histories that are much different than their respective regiments. Many battalions in the Marine Corps existed prior to their regiments being formed. The Marine Corps was tiny until WWII and really didn't stand up regiments except during WWI. Also, with the current deployments in Iraq units are not deploying with their parent regiments but rather as task organized MAGTFs. For example, 2/2 was part of the 1st Marine Regiment during Operation Vigilant Resolve. Vigilant Resolve will not show up on the 2nd Mar Reg history but will be part of 2/2's. There is also the case of the MEUs where a Battalion will go out completely detached from the regiment and participate in real world operations.--Looper5920 22:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is no difference between the organizational histories of the Army and the Marine Corps. Like I said the USMC borrowed the organizational model of the Army, and continues to do so today, with the inevitable changes to accommodate needs unique to the marine Corps. What is happening with Marine Battalions in iraq is identical with Army Battalions and Regiments in the same situation. Likewise, ALL Army Regiments below the number 17 for Cavalry Regiments, and another number I cannot recall for the moment predate the history of all Army Divisions. Before World War I, the Division was a temporary formation that was created for specific conflicts, and were organic to specific Corps, which were also temporary organizations created for a conflict. As I recall, there were several Marine Regiments in Vietnam. One area where there might be a difference is the fact that all battalions that are organic to Army Regiments have Ordinal Numbers (1st Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment), while Separate Battalions have Cardinal Numbers (369th Infantry Battalion). A separate battalion that is subordinated to a higher headquarters retains its original number and history, because it is separate, not organic. Army also has organic battalions that are being assigned to joint units, but they remain organic to their parent regiment, with that number, so you will find a joint unit that could have the 1st Battalion of the 3rd Infantry Regiment, for example, and the 3rd Battalion of the 4th Infantry Regiment, together. They would operate organic to the Joint Unit, and yet still belong to their respective home units. As to the idea of two categories for active and inactive units, we don't break them down that way for any other force or eschelon, so why should we do that for Active and Inactive Marine Corps Battalions?? SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 23:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bottomline is that the Marine Corps does not use the term Separate Battalion. While applicable to the Army it is not applicable to the Marine Corps and should not be used as a category for Marine units. As for the we don't break them down that way for any other force or echelon argument. I would say why not. It is a very logical way of distinguishing units and just because no one else does it does not mean it can't be considered.--Looper5920 23:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will yield on the Seperate Battalion issue, although you will have to have this argument with others here. As to the Active vs Inactive issue, the task forces here working on military history have established that we treat all units as if they have a continuous existance, wether or not they are active or inactive. They may have activity dates, but they only get one listing. There are units that have several active periods, separated by periods of inactivity, but only one article. I think your expansion units have more than one activity period. Still they would get only one article embracing all periods of activity. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 00:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resource lists

Hey! Great work on finding all of those lists; if it's not too much trouble, though, could you add the US-specific lists to the section in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/United States military history task force directly, rather than to the main project page? —Kirill Lok s hin 02:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only added ther Marine Corps lists, and will replace them by burying them in higher level lists that will permit other nation's Marine Corps units to be included. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 03:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That might work too ;-) I've just been trying to keep the "Resources" section on the main project page limited to things we don't have separate task forces for, to prevent it from becoming too bloated. —Kirill Lok s hin 03:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question, if I may?

SSG, are the Army's colors really blue and gold? I seem to remember them as green and gold - maybe because of the class As. Jennifer 22:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Army has only worn some shade of Green as its Class A uniforms since the period between World War I and World War II, when the so-called "Pinks And Greens" were assembled. This is when the Green Jacket you know came about. The full Fledged AG-44/AG-344 Army Green uniform only dates from about 1962, and currently is fighting for it's life. Believe it or not, the Army is considering restoring the Army Blue uniform to full Class A status, and relegate the Army Green uniform to Class B status. The primary reason is the fact - even I knew this when I was on Active Duty - the AG-44/AG-344 uniform LOOKS like a business suit. No decision has been made, but the chances are very good. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 23:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter, Issue I

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue I - March 2006

Project news

An independent military history peer review has been created for the benefit of the project. A number of articles have already been reviewed, receiving significantly more feedback within the project than they did on the generic peer review page.
The project's Collaboration of the Fortnight got off to a great start with Ferdinand Foch and is now focusing on the military history of Spain.
Two new task forces—dealing with warfare during classical antiquity and the Middle Ages—have been created.
An effort to build a catalogue of high-quality maps for use in military history articles is now underway.
The newly-formed translation department is looking for volunteers to help with translating featured articles from other-language Wikipedias.

From the Coordinators

Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Military history WikiProject's newsletter! We hope that this new format will help members—especially those who may be unable to keep up with some of the rapid developments that tend to occur—find new groups and programs within the project that they may wish to participate in.

Please consider this inital issue to be a prototype; as always, any comments and suggestions are quite welcome, and will help us improve the newsletter in the coming months.

Kirill Lok s hin, Lead Coordinator

Current proposals

Proposed guidelines for categories of military people are currently being discussed. A number of issues have already been resolved, but the proposed scheme is still in draft form and further input would be very welcome.

delivered by Loopy ^e 04:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Bluebot

What articles are you talking about, my bot has just been adding bullet points to external links. Martin 21:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

66th Armored Regiment is the one that I found first. The sections in question were established with bullet points, and they have been removed and the result is a series of run-on sentences. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 21:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean, it was a very simple edit it made to 3 regiment articles, adding a bullet point looks much better, and is the standard across every other article. Martin 21:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go look at the Campaign participation Credit and Decoration sections of those regimental articles. Those were originally formatted as a column with bullet points, and now they are both run-on sentences in single paragraphs. Which sections did you modify??

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 21:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt touch those sections, I added bullet points to the external link in the external link section. Martin 21:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will have to examine the edit history to find the culprit. Thanks any way.SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 21:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to American Revolutionary War campaign streamers was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 19:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tawkerbot2

You malformed the redirect. Tawketbot2 saw that you had removed the majority of the text, and was unable to see that you had replaced it with a valid redirect, because you had not. Removal of large sections of text is very, very common for vandals, and so is one of the things that the bot watches for. The problem is the invalid redirect that you did. There are an almost infinite number of ways that people can mess up a redirect, and the bot has to look for specific patterns. There is no way for the bot to know of every possible way someone could almost convert something into a redirect, but mess it up. So this is likely a problem that will be impossible to solve in the long run. - TexasAndroid 20:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The solution, is probably to preview your redirect before you save the page. This is not an uncommon problem, it seems a lot of people malform redirects. Sorry about that. joshbuddy^talk 20:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bigger problem is the fact that I had to swap the text because the original move was so far back in time as to make an earlier move problematical. Otherwise, I would have to do a whole mess of pruning that was made moot by the text swap. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 20:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't fully understand what you mean by the preceding comment, but it would be better to have the history of the article with the article. Perhaps you were unable to make the move because the target name was occupied. If you don't have a good reason not to do so, I will move all the history to the current article. NoSeptember ^talk 22:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I like these articles, so I created this category: Category:Campaigns of American wars, although it could be redundant with other categories in the military project, which I don't really follow. NoSeptember ^talk 23:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invite

Thanks for the invite, but military history is not so high on my list of interests, except for the colonial period (1607-1763). Feel free to contact me if you ever need anything. Cheers, NoSeptember ^talk 05:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point for the invite is that we are setting up task forces to work on various periods, and you may want to take part in a task force that would be working on the Colonial Period. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 02:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USAMHI and USACMH

2000 Hours 11 April, 2006

You are making things up buddy boy. The US Army Center of Military History (USACMH) is at Ft. Belvoir, not Carlisle Barracks. The US Army Military History Insititue (USAMHI) is at Carlisle Barracks along with the War College Library. There is no US Army library or archive with the initials USAIOH.

I have never repeat never had to file a FOIA Request to obtain research materials at either of these facilities. The USAMHI collection does not include classified materials, and those held at USACMH are for the use of the organizational and command historians, and are not avaialble to the public at all!

Finally, I can tell you with personal certainty that appointments, reservations and official permissions are not required for USAMHI or USACMH. Reservations are suggested for CMH, but you can pretty much walk in during normal operating hours, and do some research.

Philippsbourg

In the first place, USAIOH stands for United States Army Instute Of Heraldry, and it is the official keeper of ALL Heraldic items for the united States Government. Go here and take a look around: [2]

In the second place, you did not need to file a FOIA request because you did not try to access items still classified from previous wars. There are still World War II and Korea and Vietnam items still classified for one reason or another. They are being declassified as we work here, and they are being posted on the various sites as they are declassified.

In the third place, Here is CMH's Visitor Policy from their home page the emphasis is mine:

Visiting Collins Hall U.S. Army Center of Military History

Since 1998, the Center of Military History has been located in Building 35 on Fort McNair. In December 2002, the building was named Collins Hall, in memory of Brig. Gen. James L. Collins, Jr., the Chief of Military History from 1970 to 1982.

Collins Hall houses the Center’s library and research collection as well as its historians, curators, editors, and archivists. The Army Art Collection is located in a separate building on 14th Street, Northwest in DC. Location: Collins Hall 103 Third Avenue Fort Lesley J. McNair, DC 20319-5058 Visitor Hours:

Monday through Friday 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Library is closed on Friday Afternoons.

CLOSED Weekends and Federal Holidays

Visitors: The Center of Military History welcomes public use of its reference facilities. The Center’s top priority, however, always remains providing support to the Army Staff and the Army’s senior leadership.

All visitors are advised to write or telephone the Center of Military History prior to visiting Collins Hall. Outside researchers can only work at the Center between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Upon entry to Collins Hall, please check in at the security window. The security officer will contact your POC to escort you inside.

Unfortunately, the Center is not staffed to provide dedicated customer service or support to outside researchers. The Center’s historians are often away from Collins Hall conducting research or official travel. Without prior coordination, there is no guarantee that the appropriate staff member will be available. Moreover, visitors are strongly encouraged to confirm their appointments twenty-four hours in advance of their projected visit to ensure that the resource material and/or historian remains available.

Library and Research Collection: The primary function of the Collins Hall library and archives is to support the Center’s historians and staff. In addition, both the library and archives provide service to the Army staff, Congress, and other governmental agencies as well as offices of the other uniformed services. While the library welcomes public use of its reference collection, its priority remains service to the Army. All outside researchers preparing to come to Collins Hall are strongly encouraged to pursue preliminary exploration in appropriate public or university libraries so that they can make efficient use of the Center’s reference collections.

The Collins Hall library has a specialized collection that consists mainly of books and studies that deal with American military history. It has a strong collection of World War II, the Vietnam War, and published unit histories. For the most part, however, its holdings are similar to those of a university library with a good military history collection. The Collins Hall library does not lend its material to non-staff members.

The Center’s archives support on-going staff actions and studies. The archives consist of three major types of materials. First, it has unpublished monographs and studies completed by CMH historians, including final drafts of the official histories. Second, it maintains the Command Histories for the Army’s Major Commands and Corps from the mid-60s to the present. The commands’ staff historians prepare these histories annually. Third, the archives retains materials collected by the various Military History Detachments that supported the historical effort for the Army’s operations over the last decade and a half. Of this final category, some of the material remains sensitive and classified.

Neither the library nor the archives maintain personnel records or unit operational records. The former are maintained at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, while the latter are maintained at the National Archives and Records Administration in the DC area.

To coordinate a visit to the library or archives, outside researchers—both official and unofficial--should call the Circulation Desk at (202) 685-4042.

Organizational History Files: Outside researchers may use the working files of the Force Structure and Unit History Branch. These files contain documents and material that support the development of unit Lineage and Honors Certificates: They do not contain operational or organizational reports of a unit’s participation in military campaigns and operations. Due to limited staffing, visitors who want to use these files are strongly urged to make their appointment well in advance to ensure that the appropriate historian is available to provide assistance. Branch files cannot be used without staff assistance. The branch's address is Commander U.S. Army Center of Military History ATTN: DAMH-FPO 103 Third Avenue Fort McNair, DC 20319-5058 Phone: Commercial (202) 685-2733; DSN 325-2733

Cost of Copying

For researchers who want to make copies of the materials at Collins Hall, the first 15 pages are free. After that, we charge 15 cents per page. We cannot accept cash, so we will need a check or money order made out to the Department of the Treasury.

The Center, however, allows--even encourages--researchers to use cameras or scanners to make their copies.

Last of all, Not Fort Belvior, Fort McNair, as indicated from their home page:

Directions to Fort McNair

Fort McNair is located at 4th and P streets, SW, near the Waterfront/Marina. Some landmarks are the Waterfront Metro, the EPA building at Waterside Mall, Arena Stage. Visitors without military decals must use the P Street Entrance to enter the post. All visitors will be required to show valid photo identification, and their vehicles are subject to search.

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 04:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2200 Hours, 11 April 2006

You are right about it being Ft. McNair. I always get it confused with Ft. Belvoir. However, I am old, and my memory does not always work the way it used to.

Congratulations on your ability to cut and paste from the CMH website. Notice that I said that appointments were suggested.

You remain vastly confused about the materials held in the collections of MHI and CMH. The materials you speak of being declassified are at NARA's Modern Military Records at College Park!

Still, you made up your story about how you conduct research at MHI, CMH, and the Institute of Heraldry, which by the way is not an archive or library. You will be surprised to learn that most of the heraldric items of the US Army are permanently housed at the US Army Historical Clearing House, at Anniston Army Depot, not the Institute of Heraldry.

Look. Your little secret has been found out, so at least have the good grace to be silent about it. Please realize that your misrepresentations do not help the others on the WWII Project or whatever it is called. You are just confusing things with your stories.

Philippsbourg

In the first place, I never said that I do research AT either of the locations. I live too far away from both of them for that to be practical. I live 3 hours from Carlisle by Bus, and 4 hours from Washington by train, and I work a 40 Hour Week for 47 weeks a year. Back in the days when the Federal Bookstore had their bricks and mortar stores open, I used to BUY the available research-oriented books at the one in Manhattan, but - since 9-11, the only Bricks and mortar bookstore is in the Pentagon, and again we are back to the practicality problem. As it is the books are only available for purchase on-line, but USACMH and USAIOH has made that moot by posting them at their websites for people to use for research at their heart's content. I do my research - these days - entirely on-line. I know what to look for either from a search of the books I already own, or else from memory when dealing with Vietnam and other wars of modern times. Frankly, for most persons who work on the various projects in the Wikimedia project series, that is the ONLY method of doing serious research since trips to Carlise and Washington are not easy for a lot of people. You are porobley fully retired, and so have lots of time to visit Carlise and Washington whenever youy want, but I am not yet like you. I've retired from the Army, but won't get my pension for another 2 years, 8 months when I turn 60. At that time, I will also retire from my current job after 28 years, and will finally have the time to live the life of leasure you obviously have so that I can devote time for my projects as you have to yours.

As to my "Secret", I have no secret. I stand by what I have said - not what you read into what I have written - and will have the good grace to let you rant as you will unmolested. Just don't harass me with what you perceive as "Whistle Blowing", as I have no desire or time for a back-and-forth with you on this subject. You are free to believe whatever you wish to believe, just leave me alone. Thank you. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 04:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue II

The April 2006 issue of the project newsletter is now out. You may read this issue or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following the link. Thanks. Kirill Lok s h in 18:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USMC Portal

I realize that you are an Army dog but someone has suggested that our USMC portal should be deleted and we could use all the votes we can get. Link is here. If you don't want to then no worries but I thought I'd ask. Thanks in advance.--Looper5920 11:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - May 2006

The May 2006 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. —ERcheck @ 23:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, please paraphrase instead of copying

This stole from that. Can you please be careful and paraphrase instead of copy-and-paste? 71.132.145.204 07:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they are both taken from this link Official Fort Irwin history, and therefore are free for the copying since the information is in the PUBLIC DOMAIN. For your information, the Global Security site takes ALL their information from official sources, such as the actual units, the US Army Center for Military history and the US Army Institute of heraldry - the same as we do. Just as they are free to make use of the information, SO ARE WE!!! SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 13:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Camp Blanding article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! Bjelleklang - talk 16:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not use the Global Security information straight away, but traced it to the official Camp Blanding website. in the interim, it seems that Camp Blanding turned the file back over to the Camp Blanding Vets Association, who have since Copyrighted it. hence, I reduced the text to the stub you find on the temporary sub-page. BTW, you may be interested to know that NOTHING on the Global Security website is original composition. Most of it comes from the Public Domain US Army Center for Military History and US Army Institute of Heraldry websites, or else Official Unit Websites, all of which are Public Domain. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 19:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for following up on this. But even if Globalsecurity have collected their material from another source, it still says

Re-use of any of GlobalSecurity.org's editorial content and graphics online for any purpose is strictly prohibited. The materials from GlobalSecurity.org's site is available for informational and noncommercial uses offline only, provided the content and/or graphics are not modified in any way, all copyright and other notices on any copy are retained, and permission is granted by GlobalSecurity.org and/or FAS as may be applicable. Content from other sources retains its original copyright, as indicated on the respective page.

on their copyright page.[3] As nothing was indicated in their Camp Blanding article[4], we should assume that they hold the copyright for it, and thus remove the contents. Bjelleklang - talk 21:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so if the US military publishes something in the public domain and I copy it to my own website, I can claim a copyright to it, even if they still have the text on their website? I don't think so. Globalsecurity doesn't "collect their material from another source", they copy it, word-for-word. Globalsecurity can't copyright what is already public domain. --Habap 21:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's in the public domain, you can't claim copyright. But as the same text was found on a site that claims copyright to it, it should be tagged as a copyright violation. If the source Globalsecurity has copied their article from can be found, and this is in the public domain, there should be no problem. Bjelleklang - talk 23:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the good Sergeant has been saying. Globalsecurity has copied their articles word-for-word from the public domain articles, so their assertion of copyright doesn't apply to most of the articles found on their site. It only applies to the ones which they created themselves. --Habap 04:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree to that, the only problem is that there is currently no way of knowing what articles they've written themselves and not. I'¨ve tried searching for the complete, and parts of the opening sentence, but as nothing else but Wikipedia and Globalsecurity comes up, I should assume that they have created the article, and thus own the copyright to it, and tag it as a copyvio until a source can be found to prove otherwise, just to be on the safe side. Bjelleklang - talk 10:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the first place, if you go back to the Global Security site, and click on their links for the official Camp Blanding website, you will find that they have moved their website to another address. The Global Securtity link was

[www.globalsecurity.org/ military/facility/camp-blanding.htm].

Camp Blanding is now to be found via the following websites:

<>[www.30thinfantry.org/blanding_history.shtml]<>

A fuller history of Camp Blanding, and General Blanding himself is found at the following website:

<>[http://cam.arts.usf.edu/McCollumPDF/36.History.pdf]<>

I found the following information on the Florida Army National Guard website which is where the Camp Blanding page is now hosted:

The official Camp Blanding History is to be found at:

<>[5]<>

The licensing information for the entire website is as follows:

UNCLASSIFIED, NON-SENSITIVE, NON-PRIVACY ACT USE ONLY

PRIVACY AND SECURITY NOTICE
1. www.fljack.ang.af.mil is provided as a public service by the 125th Fighter Wing, Florida Air National Guard.
2. Information presented on www.fljack.ang.af.mil is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested.
3. Use of this site is collected for analytical and statistical purposes, such as assessing what information is of most and least interest, determining technical design specifications, and identifying system performance or problem areas.
4. For site security purposes and to ensure that this service remains available to all users, this government computer system employs software programs to monitor network traffic to identify unauthorized attempts to upload or change information, or otherwise cause damage.
5. Raw data logs will only be used to identify individual users and their usage habits for authorized law enforcement investigations or national security purposes. These logs are scheduled for regular destruction in accordance with National Archives and Records Administration Guidelines.
6. Unauthorized attempts to deny service, upload information, change information, or to attempt to access a non-public site from this service are strictly prohibited and may be punishable under Title 18 of the U.S. Code to include the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 and the National Information Infrastructure Protection Act.
7. If you have any questions or comments about the information presented here, please forward them to us using the comment form. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 14:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006

The June 2006 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. Kirill Lokshin 06:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military justice?

Do you mean Category:Military law? I don't think there's a useful distinction to be made by splitting out another category; the only use I can see for one by that name is for military judicial systems, which is only a handful of articles. Kirill Lokshin 15:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is because you are looking at this from a Civilian point of view. Military Law and Military Justice are two different things. Military Law is an umbrella concept which - yes - includes Military Justice to a certain extent, but Military Justice itself has one foot in military Law and another foot in Justice in terms of the kind of justice we often wish for in the civilian world. For example, civilians look at a trial as a punitive measure designed to decide on guilt or non-guilt (NOT innocence), while military trials include complete Justification and Exoneration as outcomes. Indeed, for a career Officer or NCO, it is a requirement when they are accused of a heinous charge in the course of their duties that they Demand a Court Martial to clear their professional and personal reputations so that their careers are not derailed. Otherwise, they can be cleared of charges, in the civilian sense, but still held guilty by their peers and their superiors.

As to the number of current articles, I think that will change when the fact that there are so few articles here is generally known.SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 15:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions, then:

~~Should it be Category:Military justice (note the lowercase)?~~
Will it be a sub-category of Category:Military law, or of Category:Military directly? Kirill Lokshin 15:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, figured out the answer to the first one (the UCMJ uses "military justice" everywhere except titles, so we should probably follow that), but I'd still like your advice on the second question. Kirill Lokshin 15:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. I think that making Military justice a sub category of Military instead of Military Law' is useful because of an aspect I hadn't considered. In the USA, and I'd bet in other nations as well, Military Justice includes a Non Judicial Punishment component which is totally illegal in the Civilian world. minor infractions are punished under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Article 15 authorizes a Unit Commander to punish minor infractions by such punishments as Fines, House Arrest, extra work outside of one's career field, such as extra housekeeping dutes, Temporary Demotion, Temporary loss of other Privileges, etc WITHOUT a trial.

None of the latter is legal in the civilian world, but is uncontested in the military world as an alternative to Judicial Punishment.SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 15:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that works. I'll move it up one level to be under "Military" directly. Kirill Lokshin 16:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Categories

It might be a valid approach, but it's not really my call to make. Empty categories can be speedily deleted by any administrator, so it's not really worthwhile to create them without putting some articles into them at the same time. Conversely, it's often worth discussing categories before we start re-categorizing any significant number of articles, in order to avoid having to go through them all again should the category turn out to have a problem (such as an incorrect name, for example).

Aside from this point, of course, is the question of writing documentation for the category system, where readability becomes more of a concern. There's nothing preventing us, for example, from creating a few hundred duplicated or misnamed categories, but adding them all to, say, the overview list on WP:MILHIST will make it rather useless for actually finding out what the "key" categories that are in wide use are. Kirill Lokshin 16:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All valid points, but it overlooks one problem I have with Wikipedia's whole system. It has no index or catalog that can be used by users to find what it is they are looking for. I am still finding things by means of serendipity, and that is just not good enough. The search engine, like all other search engines, is so all-inclusive that it becomes a chose to search out an article title that possibly could exist. I tried the master Category system, and it too is a chore to use. I started on an article about the UCMJ, and then stumbled upon such an article that did not have the Military History label on it, or a Military Law or Military Justice category attached. I did my part and added both items, so it should be easier to find, but serendipity is only enjoyable in Arabian Nights.SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 17:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's been a persistent problem ever since the category system was first introduced, I think. The only practical solution seems to be vigorous top-down creation of categories with a more-or-less-logical pattern (like what was done below Category:Battles), but this is extremely time-consuming and requires a significant amount of planning work up front to be successful. Kirill Lokshin 17:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the solution may be to take a page from the Dewey Decimal System. Obviously we cannot use it as written - it is sold, afterall, but it would give some idea as to how to establish a categorization system. I still think an Index is a good idea.SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 06:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006

The July 2006 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 18:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subway Booth Numbers

How are you getting them? Is it an internal transit source? alphaChimp ^laudare 23:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another note. Talk page posts like this are very hard to follow. Is there any chance you could just post at the end of the discussion? alphaChimp ^laudare 23:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the current TWU Rcording Secretary for Station Agents, I represent the 3300+ Station Agents, and I currently work nights at C-12, 9th Street on the R Line. BTW. I can also provide the official line mileage information, as well as the official time-between-stations that is used to construct the Time Tables. I also have a complete set of Line Drawings, and so can confirm your information as to what is where in the system.

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 00:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just be careful you don't violate any transit policies in information you post. The TA has some fairly strict policy in regard to posting sensitive information online. alphaChimp ^laudare 01:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. I've been employed by the TA for almost 27 years, and - in my Union capacity - I've helped write some of them. The booth numbers are no secret, If you look on the front of any booth in the system, you will find the booth number posted very prominently. Sometimes, twice. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 01:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I'm just trying to help. Coincidentally, are you sure you want to use your real name as your displayed name? alphaChimp ^laudare 01:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have no reason to hide just who I am. I only contribute in those areas where I have expertese - Transit, Railroads, and the Military - and I have a fairly large private research library to draw upon. I've never been happy with the internet habit of using an alias in ordinary conversation or discourse. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 01:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on coordinators

Hey! I've moved your general remarks to the talk page, which is a much better place for them. In any case, please don't create sections mimicking the ones for a nomination if you're not running, as it's extremely confusing for everyone reading the page. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 18:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was voting, which was why you asked me to participate, as I recall. As to my comments and suggestions, YOU are the one who made up the template and ASKED for comments and suggestions. I said what I had to say about the project team, and what I feel needs to be done in this next term of office. If you don't like what I said, then please don't ask me for comments and suggestions. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 21:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's very good; it's just that if your comments (or "votes", although I didn't see any explicit vote there—not all the incumbents are running, for one) are directed at everyone, rather than at any of the candidates specifically, then the best place for them would be the talk page. Creating a nomination section for them is confusing, because people reading will naturally expect an actual nomination there. Kirill Lokshin 21:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, my initial conclusion that this system of "voting" is quite confusing and overly complicated is correct. In the first place, I have no means of recognizing the "Incumbents" from the "Insurgents", which should have been indicated in their nominating statements. Your name, and that of one or two others are the only names I've seen with any regularity in any apparent "Official" capacity, and even that I still have no idea just what your "title" is, although I have a sneaking suspicion that you are the lead coordinator. If you look through the project, there is no official list of the "Officers" of this project, which would have dispelled the confusion if it had been included. Likewise, coming right out and ranking the nominees in order of "Incumbents" and "Insurgents" would have made my decision a lot easier. As it is, since I really don't know anyone here, I just took a shot in the dark and decided to vote for all the Incumbents and let it go at that. BTW, my votes for all the Incumbents is perfectly valid. The votes for those who are not running - as you say - are called "Write-in Votes", and they get counted since they represent votes for persons the voter wants to fill offices. If you are not going to permit "Write-in Votes", then you have to say that up front, but that only makes it more important to identify just who the Incumbents and insurgents are, and who amoung the Incumbents are have declined to run for another term. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 09:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, perhaps you're right; being accustomed to how elections (e.g. ArbCom elections) are conducted on Wikipedia, I hadn't realized that there might be confusion. Something to consider for the next set, I suppose.

Incidentally, there is a list, of sorts, of the project officers: WP:MILHIST#Coordinators. Kirill Lokshin 15:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 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 is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 19:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

National Guard

Please take a look at a stub article I created to serve as a first-pass 'template' for the various state Army National Guard units. The page is Alabama Army National Guard. If you have the time, please improve it. My goal is to develop the generality of the stub (the stuff that would work for many states) further, before adding a whole lot of detail about the Alabama unit specifically. Mvialt 12:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. I'd be glad to help. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 22:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is AWESOME work Cornelius. The Alabama Army Guard article is looking really good, and it won't be long until other editors start adding to it. Question: do you think we should create other states from a copy of the edit text that is now on Alabama right now? Or is there some way to create a wikipedia template that would help keep certain paragraphs or sections (the ones with the info in each article that is the same for all fifty states)? I don't know how to do it with WP magic, but I can see the benefit if it is possible. Mvialt 12:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sgt. Seon, please take a look at a minor issue that has arisen on this subject. I have expanded the Alabama state-level ARNG stub page you created out to about 30 states now (for a current list, go to United States National Guard#National Guard Forces). Another Wiki-editor thinks the introduction section of the articles are too long. Since you wrote it, I would like to be sure you are involved before we change any of these articles in any big way. You can see that editor's input about the article intro length on my talk page. I don't have any problem using a different template for any additional pages I might add in the future, but I don't have the time to go back and edit all of the ones already in place, unless it's a simple change. So if you would consider updating one of existing article's intro sections, I would try to use that going forward on any new state ARNG pages. Best wishes, and hope your move has gone well. Mvialt 21:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the courtesy. I will look at it immediately, and see what I can do. Thanks again. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired)

You bet! Thanks for the updates you made. However, I should point out that the Ohio ARNG page is NOT one that was made using your original template from the Alabama page. Nearly all of the other state-level pages that exist (of about 30 in total), that is about 25 or so of 30 pages, were made with the Alabama-based template, or improved variation of it over time (Kansas, I think). THOSE are the ones that the other editor had a problem with the length of the intro. (The Ohio page is being actively editied by an editor with a strong interest in OH NG stuff; so I mostly just left it for him/her to improve. It is the other state pages that were an issue.)

So I recommend you take a look at several of those other pages, and make your edits so as to set up one of them that could be used as sort of a "master template" for any new state-level ARNG articles we might add. Let me know what you decide to do. Mvialt 19:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I hope you had a Happy Thanksgiving. -SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 04:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

US Army National Guard: Transformation

Sgt. Seon, I have put a question over on the Talk:Army National Guard discussion page relating to a rapidly growing section we have created to deal with Army National Guard Transformation. I would really appreciate your eyes on the question too. I think you could provide some good perspective on section organzation before we add too much more information to it. Mvialt 19:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Militia Act of 1792

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Militia Act of 1792, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Militia Act of 1792. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. --Benn Newman 00:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination: Militia Act of 1792

I've nominated the article Militia Act of 1792 for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Militia Act of 1792 satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Militia Act of 1792. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Militia Act of 1792 during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. --Benn Newman 02:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you had bothered to look at the list of linking articles that are supported by that article, you would have seen that it is a sub-page of the article on the US national Guard, and one of several sub-pages performing that task. As such, I would have had no resort but to replace the article with one just like it since it still provides support to a Main Article on the US National Guard. I would recommend that you do your homework properly before you threaten to do a hatchet job on someone else's work. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 03:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Militia Act of 1792. --Benn Newman 12:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to this comment of yours, I would like to advise you to review WP:NPS, which explains why original texts such as statutes are not suitable for Wikipedia, and WP:OWN, which states that no one "owns" an article on Wikipedia, and consequently no one needs any permission by someone else for any edits. Thanks, Sandstein 22:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, but common courtesy requires that you let me know what you plan on doing, and why, IN DETAIL. I would not dream of doing the form of major surgery you contemplate doing on the work we have done without talking with the author first, and MAYBE letting him make the decision for me. You have a lot to learn on the subject of Common Courtesy, and - if you continue to talk to me with the level of disrespect I hear in your written voice - you will get those lessons on common courtesy from me. I hope that is enough from me to get your head screwed back on corectly. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 08:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not contemplating on doing any work on this article, but I would like to point out that this last comment was rather incivil. I was merely advising you of pertinent Wikipedia policy. This, sergeant, is not a barracks, but an open volunteer-edited encyclopedia, and you will please observe an appropriate civil tone and refrain from personal attacks, or you will be blocked from any further contributions.

In particular, I will block you from editing Wikipedia without further notice if you make any more overt or implied threats of violence, as in "you will get those lessons on common courtesy from me".

Thank you for your understanding, and feel free to ask me about any points of policy that you may have questions about. Sandstein 11:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, you are the one who is used to dealing in violence, since I never used the word. I was talking about the fact that you did not use common courtesy when you were talking to me, but treated me as if I was your child. I am a 58 year old man, with children and grandchildren, and insist on being treated with courtesy when spoken to. Openly threatening me doesn't help the situation. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 12:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We may have a misunderstanding here. I was not intending to patronise you and I was not implying you were acting in anything but good faith. I was just trying to help you out by directing your attention (if tersely) to policies and guidelines, adopted by consensus of editors, that I hoped would help you understand why Wikipedia does not operate the way you may expect it to. That is, I should think, an appropriate and expected courtesy between fellow editors, as is accepting advice given in good faith. Whoever we may be in real life, here on this project nobody needs to know or care - we are editors of equal rank, and we all start out as new users who need the occasional hint from more experienced contributors. I for one was grateful for such assistance when I was new to the project. At any rate, I bear you no ill will, but please do remember that threats of violence, even implied ones, are very much frowned upon here. My offer of any further assistance, of course, still stands. Sandstein 12:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may find WP:BOLD to be a helpful read

Another page you might find beneficial to read is WP:BOLD. In practice, editors often will just edit an article, sometimes substantially, without contacting the article originator or other editors who have contributed to the article. Expecting other editors to contact you and go over the changes they plan on making in detail before they make them probably isn't a realistic expectation (though substantial changes should be justified on the article talk page after they are made) and if that is what you are expecting from your fellow editors you may be sorely disappointed.--Isotope23 17:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Mr. Isotope, I find it quite realistic, and - when I have to make substantive changes for this reason or that - I will certainly let the original author know so that they can either agree with my changes, or disagree and explain. I find that if an explanation is made in discussion, there is less possibility of misunderstanding, and less chanc

Findlay, Ohio

I reverted your edit to Findlay, Ohio and started a discussion on the Findlay, Ohio talk page giving my reasons. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:1CD SSI.gif

A tag has been placed on Image:1CD SSI.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:1CD SSI.gif|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- There is another 1st Cavalry Division SSI picture over on the Commons, wo the one on Wikipedia can be replaced.SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 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) 04:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

947th Military Police Detachment

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article 947th Military Police Detachment, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 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) 00:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Status at WP:NYCPT

Hello. I've noticed that you have registered as a member of WP:NYCPT. Please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Participants and add or correct you status as an active or semi-active member, as well as if you are an admin, whay projects you work on, and a sample of the work you do in the NYCPT scope. Thank you. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 15:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 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) 00:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come join the party

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States Inclusionist (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 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) 00:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 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) 18:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of ..\1912 300m United States Team

A tag has been placed on ..\1912 300m United States Team requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 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) 00:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont

Thank you for your updates to "Vermont." If you haven't done so already, please ensure that these same updates are performed on "The History of Vermont," which is the main article. We need to summarize this high level history into "New York had a border dispute with New Hampshire. Ethan Allen formed the Green Mountain Boys to deal with it. Then came the revolution....." Student7 (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interlocking

Hi. You appear to be maintaining your own copy of articles to work on, then copying and pasting back into the main article after you've made changes. Please don't do this, because you are overwriting edits made by others. –Signalhead ^< T > 10:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is not correct. What I am doing is copying your work to my word processor, doing the alterations and additions, then pasting my work to my user page to correct any errors, and then replacing the original work with the updated work. The only missing items are those I updated. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, what you have done has caused my Manual of Style (which you should familiarise yourself with) edits to disappear. Now I (or you) will have to do them over again. Just one other thing: from the material you've added, it is obvious that you are confused by the difference between electrical and electronic interlockings. No problem, I will sort that as well. –Signalhead ^< T > 10:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not confused between Electronic and Electric. I am quoting from ORIGINAL GRS material AAR Material, and NYCTA material.

What happened is that the industry viewed the move from Electric to Electronic to be one of style, not substance, and thus the terminology remained mostly the same where no significant difference took place. NY Central and the New York Subway got to name quite a few things since they were the two test beds for Electronic. The Subway - even today, uses the same terminology for both Electric and Electronic, both of which are still present in significant numbers, and are intermixed with no problems.

Indeed, the first change in terminology is appearing today as the Subway moves away from both Electric and early Electronic as they move forward into modern train control systems.

As to your manual of style edits, sorry about that. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 11:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:13th

I moved your comment to my talk page and replied there. I prefer to keep discussions in one place, for readability's sake. Parsecboy (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 21:48, 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) 22:44, 2 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) 21:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Empire State Building

Please stop adding the "|" character as you did to the Empire State Building external links. It causes the link to not work and is unnecessary. Thanks, --claygate (talk) 12:29, 26 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) 22:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

I followed some discussion about you on WP:AN and found your addition to Category:United States Army awards - I think this in the wrong place. Probably should be at an article such as American order of precedence (decorations and medals) or USA order of precedence (decorations and medals). You can see an example of another country's article at Canadian order of precedence (decorations and medals)

Category pages are generally only used for listing other articles in the category, not for having major original content in. Please consider moving your information to an actual article instead, thanks. Exxolon (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I don't think I started that set of entries - I just worked on cleaning it up and adding links. I've seen that sort of work before, especially in terms of Military Categories, as a means of formally listing the existing files within the category, and the new files that need to be added to complete the categor. In other words, the listing shows what work needs to be done to complete the category. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York County and the birth of the Bronx in Borough Presidents

Hi, this is just to let you know of a discussion of this question that I started at Talk:Borough President —— Shakescene (talk) 08:23, 9 November 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) 23:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on USACE article

I have reverted your edits on November 16, 2008, please post all discussions regarding this revert on the USACE talk page. -Signaleer (talk) 12:32, 17 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) 16:07, 6 December 2008 (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) 02:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

13th ABN

Excuse me, but what are you doing to the dates on 13th Airborne Division? It's a Featured Article and shouldn't be messed about with; would you please undo those date changes? The new patch, however, is greatly appreciated. Skinny87 (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I've just reverted your changes, patch and all. Please don't alter text on an article without discussing on the talkpage first, especially for a Featured Article I worked extremely hard on! Skinny87 (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The date format you see is the one that is standard across all of the Wikimedia sites. It is one of two date formats that will appear correct to the user no matter how he has his date format preference set, and it is the format that takes up the least amount of space in the article. Incidentally, having been on Wikimedia since 2005, I've gone through the issue of changes in date formats as the programing of the system has advanced, so I can understand if you are not aware of the standardization that is progressing across the system. I'm in the middle of applying this standardization in the articles I've originated. Finally, and I've had to get used to this as well, you are going to have to get used to finding your articles edited by others as time goes by. That is a cardinal rule over here, and I will admit that it is disconcerting at first. The rule - as found at the foot of all editing windows - is: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it."

- SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realize that and please don't be patronizing; I've been here a while as well. But please, whilst the patch was kind of you and the dates a relatively minor thing, the text about the divisional training was out of place, uncited and unreferenced. Talking on the talkpage would have been a courtesy, especially for a Featured Article. I'd appreciate it if you did so before making any further changes to the article. Skinny87 (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asking a few editors on the official en-wikipedia IRC chat, and I've been told such a date format isn't a wikimedia wide thing, and that I should cite WP:ENGVAR. Can you cite sources for your standardization stance? Skinny87 (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My source is as follows: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date autoformatting. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Look, thank-you for the heraldic information. But it's probably in the wrong place of the article (perhaps between Deactivation and the Order of Battle?) and you've seemingly deleted the entire intro except for a single line. I don't imagine it was vandalism, but can we please discuss changes to the article? I won't revert yet, but the intro needs to go back to its previous state, and the heraldic stuff could be compressed into a smaller section. What do you think? Skinny87 (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping we might discuss the following changes. I would like to restore the intro to its previous state, when it was assigned the FA star. I think the heraldic stuff is awesome, but perhaps it should be compacted down to a sentence or two and added to ther Formation section? And whilst the books you've added are great, only one is used in the text; perhaps te rest could be placed in a further reading section? Skinny87 (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this sandbox, I've had a bash at incorporating the text you've added into the FA-version of the article, adding back the intro and moving the citations you added for the Heraldic text to the end of the section as per MOS. How does it look to you - suitable? Skinny87 (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, if that looks suitable to you, as it retains all the info you added, then I'll replace the version of the article that exists now with that. Skinny87 (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I rollbacked your edits. That was a featured article, and your edits could be considered vandalism. Please, before changing the structure of the article and removing information discuss your edits on the article's talk page (or here, since the discussion has been moved here). I'm sure Skinny87 can work your information in, under the condition that it's properly cited. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you Jon. I'm sure the edit's weren't vandalism. They're actually very helpful in fact. But discussing on the talkpage first would've been nice. However, hopefully the sandbox above will contain a version everyone can be happy with. Skinny87 (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's why I didn't warn him. :p WP:AGF JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Cornelius, I appreciate your edits - Ireally do - but 13th Airborne Division is a Featured Article, and your edits kinda screwed up the lead and history section. I asked before and you didn't reply - how about this sandbox as a compromise candidate? Skinny87 (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhinelander Waldo's birthday

Thanks for clearing that up. As you can see from Talk:Rhinelander Waldo, that had been perplexing me for a while. Of course, anything you can add about Waldo's brief but interesting life and post-military career would be helpful in drawing a fuller picture of Waldo (as would both military, non-military and veterans' details about Mayor Ardolph Loges Kline, e.g., did he actually serve in the field or anywhere else in Cuba?) Happy New Year! —— Shakescene (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Beak Street (Manhattan)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Beak Street (Manhattan), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beak Street (Manhattan) (2nd nomination). Thank you. Schzmo (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh Regiment band playing at Yankee Stadium's opening in 1923

Would you mind checking whether my reference in Yankee Stadium#Opening Day is correct? There is a bewildering number of Seventh Regiments (defunct and continuing), but I presume that the one whose band (led by John Philip Sousa) that Robert Slayton mentions in his biography of Al Smith is the "Silk Stocking" Regiment [ 7th Infantry Regiment (United States) ]. Thanks. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the first place, the 7th New York Infantry Regiment of the period became the 107th Infantry Regiment, NYARNG, as a result of its Federal Recognition in World War One, and retained that designation to today. Here is the page from the NYARNG's own history project:

7th Regiment in World War One

The above link has a sizable bibliography about the history of the 7th Regiment that you may find useful, including the period between the two World Wars.

I found the following link for the New York Times article on the opening of Yankee Stadium. I downloaded it - in PDF - and will email it to you if you let me know your email address: Yank's New Stadium To Be Opened Today I searched the article, and found no mention of 7th Regiment. However, a list of others present is in the article. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - your new stub template has been speedily deleted as a re-creation of a previously deleted type. If you wish to create a new stub type, please follow the instructions at WP:STUB and propose it first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. If you had done so this time, you would have been pointed towards the extensive list of existing stub types for biographical articles (all of which are take the form {{bio-stub}}). Grutness...wha? 23:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The easier - and more helpful - thing would have been to personally redirect the file to a better named category. That is what I do when I come across the same problem, and I know what the solution is. THEN I explain what I've done, so the other person has a clue as to what has transpired, and can catch on in a flash. I also rarely delete their hard work because I certainly wouldn't like it when the shoe is on my foot. I may clean it up, make additions, edit paragraphs, etc., but a deletion? NAH, that is quite presumptive. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help Desk question

Hiya - an interesting question you've posted there (not one that bothers me, as a Mac user ;-) - but I'd suggest (and have suggested) that the best place for it is at the village pump (technical section) - the help desk is more for questions about using Wikipedia, rather than the technical side of things such as how other sites interact with Wikipedia. _Gb^T/c 17:18, 9 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) 03:25, 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) 21:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Edward Dunn (developer)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Edward Dunn (developer), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Edward Dunn (developer) seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Edward Dunn (developer), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:50, 5 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) 18:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Courts

Hi, again, I was wondering with your access to many codes of New York State laws, you could help clarify the confusing lede (introduction) to New York City Courts. (See also Talk:New York City Courts.) Do any courts have jurisdiction confined to a single county/borough, as does each of the five District Attorneys? Do they all have theoretical jurisdiction over all five boroughs/counties? Some judges of the Superior and/or Surrogate's Court, from looking at the Bronx's election returns, seem to cover areas bigger than a borough but smaller than the City as a whole (e.g. all or part of the Bronx plus all of part of Manhattan). The introductory explanation would differ somewhat if the judges usually sit on one bench, or if they have separate courtrooms of their own. Anyway, any light you could help shed would be welcome. Thanks and best wishes. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:06, 18 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) 00:30, 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) 02:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guidons

I have a question regarding your edits to Guidon (United States): it looks like the colors and insignia used on Army guidons mostly the same as the table on United States Army branch insignia, though I can see a few instances where they don't match at a quick glance. It might be a good idea to use the latter table to help expand the one on the guidon article, if you are up to it--it looks very sharp and would be very informative. If you don't feel like it, let me know, and I'll try to tackle it. bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I own a copy of the current AR 840-10, and consolidated more than one table into the table you see. I downloaded the guidons from the USAIOH website, and uploaded them over on Commons, and referenced them into the guidon article, and those are the colors of the original, except for the Signal Corps image, which is from another source. I looked at the list on the Branch page, and there are lots of colloquial color names that do not jibe with the names used by the USAIOH, which are official. Likewise the hues. I suggest that you copy some of the USA COA, SSI and DUI images over on the Commons site and compare them with the ones you did, and see if you can move over as close as you can to the official colors. I still have more guidon information to add to the table, and will insert the actual insignia called for in that column until such time as USAIOH uploads the rest of the guidons. In the mean time, thanks for the information, and for your good work. SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, don't get the wrong idea: I had nothing to do with creating that chart. I just wanted to draw your attention to it, and it sounds like you are knowledgable enough to make some needed fixes to it (hopefully?). I think I might add the colors to the guidon page today, however, and clean up the notes. bahamut0013^words _deeds 05:18, 6 April 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) 22:43, 5 May 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) 22:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

17th Airborne Division

Cornelius, please. We had this twice before with the 13th Airborne Division, and you got reverted by several editors when you did the same there. You just added uncited, slightly POV additions that were not cited, and added two out of place headers. Can you please discuss on the article talkpage, or my talkpage, before you do something like this? It's getting to be rather annoying and even disruptive. Skinny87 (talk) 07:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the same with 13th Airborne Division, adding things in again without prior discussion, without citations and adding more poorly-placed headers. Why won't you even discuss this? Skinny87 (talk) 07:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I reverted on 11th Airborne Division, where you added an uncited and POV Combat Chronicle without discussion on an article being copy-edited by EyeSerene. I don't know what to say except to please discuss these changes before making on the article talkpages, and we can add whatever cited, NPOV material you think is needed. But please discuss this, or I will bring this up at Wikiproject MILHIST. Skinny87 (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked

I'm extremely concerned by what seems to be a long-term pattern of copyright violation in your contributions. I've blocked your account as a preventative measure, and will ask for a review of my actions and your contributions at WP:ANI. You may still edit this page; I'll link here from the ANI post so that any responses you wish to make can be taken into account. EyeSerene^talk 08:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: ANI thread here. EyeSerene^talk 09:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius, I came to this page quite annoyed at you, and I can see you've affected more than the pages I've worked on. But I'm going toassume WP:AGF because I always have with you, even when you didn't really respond and kept on doing what got you blocked. I'm not a huge expert on copyright violations, but I'd be more than happy to help you out. I'm going to take a wiki-break, but I'd be more than willing tohelp you out with some kind of part-time mentorship, if you'd like that. Skinny87 (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Some highly experienced editors have sampled the material you've been adding to Wikipedia, and a few significant issues have been identified:

Firstly, while much (if not most) of it is indeed PD, it's not clear that all of it is. For example, this very likely isn't (see the ANI thread for a fuller explanation). As the user making the edit, it's up to you to thoroughly check the copyright status of anything you contribute; the maxim "if in doubt, leave it out" is good advice.
Secondly, while most of the material may not be in actual violation of copyright, it is plagiarism. This is becoming increasingly unacceptable to the Wikipedia community in its endeavour to build a credible encyclopedia, as evidenced by this recent article in the Wikipedia Signpost.
Thirdly, information should always be cited to its source, and plagiarised material doubly so (see WP:PLAG, which is currently a guideline, and the policy at WP:VERIFY).
Lastly, because you haven't responded to recent attempts to communicate with you regarding some of your edits, we are left uncertain as to whether or not you appreciate the problem those edits are causing.

As a result, the consensus at ANI is that this block should remain in place until you acknowledge that there are meaningful concerns with some of your edits, and undertake to ensure that all future content additions will be attributed to a source and, if applicable, thoroughly checked for suitable copyright status. You have done some excellent work over the years, and we are very appreciative of the enhancements you have made to Wikipedia, so I sincerely hope we can come to an understanding. Skinny87's offer of assistance above might be worth seriously considering. EyeSerene^talk 13:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

99% of what I contribute is NOT Copyrighted since it is either from the US ARMY CENTER OF MILITARY HSTORY, or the US ARMY INSTITUTE OF HERALDRY. Both sources are 100% in the Public Domain, since they are part of the US Government. As to my not respoinding, you guys never send me EMAIL, so I don't get anything from you unless I come online, and I don't spend 24 hours a day online.

Instead of saying that I violate copyright, you need to say just whose copyright I have violated. Everything that I have contributed that is under copyright has been cited, since I own at least one copy of the source material I normally use. Furthermore, since I stilll have no idea just what it is you are objecting to - you provide no detail - most of what I constibute to that others have started lack citations from the start. - SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no argument that Thunder from Heaven is a US Government publication.

On the wider issue, please work with the rest of us. Wikipedia must avoid copyright violation even when the ownership of the copyright is uncertain; we never know when the rightful owner will claim infringement.

Equally seriously, mere copying is rarely a good way to write an encyclopedia, even when the source is clearly public domain. Read, understand, explain. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that this editor not be unblocked until he has shown that he clearly grasps WP:COPYRIGHT. His response above is completely inadequate. We can't assign someone to follow him around and fix up the problems he creates. Even a person who couldn't understand the policy might be able to contribute here if he would express willingness to have his contributions checked by others who do understand it. I'm not hearing that he will do that. Even if he doesn't see why WP:COPYRIGHT is so important here, I've heard no reason why he can't attribute his material properly to the place it is taken from. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius, look. The majority of this would have been solved if you had A) Paraphrased sufficiently the material you used; B) added the required citations; and C) communicated properly. You edit quite frequently, and it's hardly our fault that you have said nothing about communicating via email. I'd suggest reading WP:COPYRIGHT to start off with, as suggested above, and I'd welcome mentoring you if you'd like. Skinny87 (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly with Pmanderson that copy/paste additions to the encyclopedia are rarely the best way to add text. The material always needs to be processed by the editor, who should be responsible for gauging its relative weight in the article and should massage the wording and style so that it fits into the reading flow of the article. A copy/paste editor who doesn't compose prose is not an asset. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The pages I post to that contain USACMH and USAIOH information are designed to present that information - which makes up better than 90% of the available subjective information on the units in question - in a subjective manner. There are certainly sections that are reserved for narrative, and there is room for including information from the subjective sections in the narratives, but that subjective information presents the unit history in subjective synopsis format. People who are looking for specific information on a Unit will always choose the subjective synopsis for finding that information than they would choose to pour over a narrative to find what it is they are looking for. - SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius, with all due respect, you seem to be ignoring all the well-meaning advice you're being given above. Have you, for exanple, read WP:COPYRIGHT, or acknowledge that you breached it? EyeSerene presented an excellent summary just above here in terms of what you did wrong. Skinny87 (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved admin and a milhist coordinator, I'm going to try and put my two cents in on this. I have to agree with EyeSerene & Septen, in that the specifications of the copyright are somewhat irrelevant within the context of Wikipedia's policies. If you are unsure of whether copyright has been violated, then you must assume that it has been. Unless it can be proven that it is in the public domain—and therefore not subject to copyright restrictions—then we are to assume that it is copyrighted. In that particular case, the usage of word-for-word material from Thunder from Heaven is a direct copyright violation.

In the second case—where Public Domain (PD) material is copy-pasted—it moves out of the realm of copyright violation and into the realm of plagiarism. If you fail to specify that the material you present as your own writing is a word-for-word regurgitation, then you've violated wikipedia's guidelines. WP:Plagiarism clearly states (under the header "Public Domain and Free License Text") that

Material from public domain and free sources is welcome on Wikipedia, but such material must be properly attributed. Such material need not be explicitly enclosed in block quotes, but there are often times when some or all of the material is best placed in explicit quotes. A passage that is explicitly enclosed in quotation marks and sourced by a footnote is properly attributed, because the original author is given credit for both the content and the wording.

In that case, it is irrelevant whether it is in the Public Domain, because you have not specified—either through blockquotes or simple quotations—that the material being presented is not original in either its research or its wording. Cam ^(Chat) 23:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Example of how to bring US Gov heraldric text into an article

Here's an example of a copy/paste addition of yours that I massaged to better fit the article 23rd Infantry Division (United States):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=23rd_Infantry_Division_(United_States)&diff=295607003&oldid=295487434

My version trims about 1500 bytes off the original text taken from www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil, The Institute of Heraldry which is run by the Pentagon. I also credit the original source, using a named reference so that three paragraphs can share a single reference. If you are ever unblocked, please study this reformatting and re-arrangement of the government's version—it's a decent example of what you could be doing for Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad. There are some factual errors because you have taken some information out of context, which is one reason why most people try to not extrapolate CMH information. and there are gaps as well, the largest being the lack of the full Honors information, which requires more access to the CMH pages. The Heraldic Achievements section is missing as well.

SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly didn't want to create problems by taking away information, but I very much intended to trim back the excessive detail presented at the TIOH website. The gaps I created by omission are on purpose. Too much detail in Wikipedia articles is a bad thing. Readers who desire it can dive further into the details by following up the footnotes and references.

Feel free to lay out the nature of the factual errors, and I'll fix them. Is one of your concerns about the blue background of the sleeve insignia? I moved a bit about the meaning of a blue field from Distinctive Unit Insignia to sleeve insignia, because it seemed apt, and the sleeve section was too short. Binksternet (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(0d)Cornelius, I really would like to see you unblocked; I'd email you but I can't find how to. Look, do you understand what you did wrong, and how you can fix it so it doesn't happen again - ie reading WP:COPYRIGHT and the other pages as suggested above? I imagine if you can explain, you'd easily be unblocked. Skinny87 (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the first place, to email me, you simply click on my screen name, which will take you to my user page. Next look in the Toolbox, where you will see a link that says E-mail this user . Click on this, and you bring up Wikipedia's webmail engine. Fill out the form, and hit send, and you will have sent me email. I willl send you one as an example. I'be back shortly. SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back. I just sent Skinny87 an email using Wikipedia Webmail.

Frankly, I have been writing - mostly Unit histories - here since 2005, and I am the one who introduced othere here to what is available on CMH and IOH. From time to time, I've run into grief from The Editing Police, and I've reciprocated by quietly correcting error on other pages without taking the writers to task, and adding information and files from Commons as it became available. I've refrained from running for positions in this group because - after 60 Birthdays, 41 Years with the Army, and 28 with New York's MTA (yes, simultaneously via the National Guard) - I've had enough of being in charge, and - while I don't mind contributing to group projects - one of the rights I've gained in double retirement is to no longer have to worry about other people's regimentation.

With that in mind, I will redirect my efforts over on Wikisource, where the things you most object to in my writing - presenting Public Domain publications in their original format, among others - is exactly what the Doctor ordered. In addition, I will still be posting images from IOH over on Commons. I'm still willing to otherwise contribute to this group - Proofreading, checking information, adding missing items, etc. - but I've had enough of the aggravation of signing in and finding out that I - a 60 year old Widower with grown Children and Grandchildren - am being admonished and punished while doing something I consider a hobby.

SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not lucky or foresighted enough to be retired in any sense of the word but I'm a four-time grandfather. That fact and four dollars will buy me a latte at Starbucks. Nobody here will cut you any slack for being 60 or having certain life experiences... the judge of a good Wiki editor is in how they contribute, nothing more, nothing less. I am glad you feel that your unprocessed copy/paste contributions will find their niche at Commons, but I had hopes that you would get a sense of how to bring, say, heraldric information to a page about a historic military unit while retaining a sense of balance relative to key unit action and deployment history. However it is that you find your niche, good luck to you. Binksternet (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you expect to homogenize Heraldic Achievement Information into a Narrative shows that you really don't have a clue about other people's experiences. In the first place, Heraldic Achievement Information is not designed to be sublimated ito a narrative format, because it is nothing more than a summary chart of a unit's achievements, along with images of each achievement. You can use that information to salt the narratives you get from CMH, but one without the other leaves an incompolete document. No nation that practices Heraldry presents the information in any other format. Indeed, to present that information in any other format is one sure sign of a hack Herald.

As to my age entitling me to any slack, I am not asking for slack, and you won't find anythig I wrote here saying that. What I did say is that I am at that time in my life where I have no intention of fighting battles with you. If I place what I have to offer into the common pot, and you take it out and throw it away as worthless because it doesn't fit your parameters, then it is your loss, not mine. Oh, and while I will be over on Commons posting images, my writing will be over on Wikisource. Ironically, I've already had to unlearn something I learned here a long while back. While I can place the information contained in the USIOH Copyright Template on pages, the only US Government Copyright they put into a Template is the Generic US Government Copyright Statement. I originally did things that way over here, but you guys forced me to put it into a Template, which was ok.

SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not regimentation, Cornelius, it's ensuring that editors don't commit copyright violations and plagarism; these aren't random or pointless rules that are being made up to harrass you, they are core policies and guidelines. Skinny87 (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only way I could violate the copyrights of either CMH or IOH would be for me to claim copyright of their works as my own. It is legally impossible for anyone to legally claim copyright of any of their information, and - having said that - I've noticed a few people over here and over on Commons making just that violation. Just because you hand-draw one of IOH's images, or use software to do the same thing, doesn't make you the Author. At best, it only makes you an Editor, with Ownership retained by IOH. Likewise, the information that CMH uses to create their Unit History Charts come from Government sources, and is collected by CMH by design. The Charts they create from that information are their property, along with the Books, CDs and on-line files. Congress put the products of both agencies in the Public Domain to eliminate the conflicts of interest and the red tape that would otherwise be necessary. The only other Copyright Violation possible would be to use IOH information commercially without a license from them. Incidentally, IOH is currently policing the explosion of commercial use of their images without license that took place after 9-11. If they haven't said anything to Wikimedia by now, they aren't going to.

SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a copyright expert, really, so I've asked an expert, Moonriddengirl, to come here and look over what you're saying. I really would like to help you get unblocked here, but I'm not sure if you've understood what you did wrong. Skinny87 (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's copyright policy; public domain, "non-commercial" use only

Hi. As you can see just above, I am here on invitation. You are quite right that public domain text can be freely added to Wikipedia (although many contributors believe that properly crediting it includes indicating that it is copied verbatim, as in Wikipedia:Plagiarism; we have some helpful attribution templates that make acknowledging this a simple paste). But it seems that you may have contributed some content that was not public domain, as with this and this. I believe that what is being asked of you is some indication that you realize that not all text can be copied on Wikipedia (although even with copyrighted text, our non-free content policy and guideline (WP:NFC) does allow some brief quotations) and some assurance that you will be careful to ensure that text you place is public domain. With the New Jersey statute explanations, I wonder if you were deceived by the US government policy into believing that works by states are also free of copyright. While some states do not claim copyright protection, most do, including New Jersey. Their laws are free to reproduce, but explanations of laws and statutes are not. As far as this source is concerned, it seems to be a website hosted by a private individual and not a government website at all, which means that we would only be able to use text from it if we could verify that it is public domain or freely licensed.

With respect to the Institute of Heraldry, Wikipedia cannot accept material that is licensed for "non-commercial use only" by our policies, as it is the project's goal to create an encyclopedia that may be freely used anywhere for any purpose, including commercially. This is why WP:NFC notes that "Any content which does not satisfy any of the criteria, such as "non-commercial use" only images, images with permission for use on Wikipedia only, or images that are fully copyrighted are classified as non-free." It is not a matter of waiting for the IOH to "say anything" about it; our policy is to police the use of material ourselves to ensure that it is consistent with these goals and policies. Such images are restricted by our rules on non-free content. Likewise, text licensed for non-commercial use only (as, say, with some Creative Commons licenses) is treated the same as any other copyrighted text. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going directly to the last paragraph, if you are correct, then that means that - conservatively - there is NO heraldic media that is from IOH that Wikipedia can use, and IOH has the charter from Congress to prepare, issue, maintain, and protect ALL US Government Heraldic Media, not just that of the Military. For example, your article on the President of the United States would have to have all of his heraldic media stripped, because it is a product of IOH. Likewise the same thing for the Congressional and Judicial Heraldic Media. If you send them an email, asking for a license to use their media, they will say that they don't issue licenses except for commercial use because there is no need for one, since the media is in the Public Domain except for commercial use. Even a case could be made for use of the American Flag, since IOH has the current mandate to maintain it. While I'm at it, the same can be said for Junior ROTC Insignia that is used by local High Schools for their JROTC Program. The insignia is prepared, issued, and maintained by IOH, and they retrieve it if the program is terminated. It wouldn't be useful here for the same reason.

My point is that Wikipedia is painting itself into a corner of its own making that is totally unnecessary.

SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another point: I DO NOT USE WEBSITES OTHER THAN IOH AND CMH. I have no need to, and wouldn't trust what they publish in any event. Besides, they cannot copyright much of the information because it came from IOH and CMH in the first place. Therefore, I can say categorically, I'VE NEVER POSTED FROM THE SITE ON 17TH AIRBORNE.

SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the last paragraph, images are not my primary focus, because I find some of our policies regarding their usage perplexingly arbitrary. (For instance, we do not accept images of living persons under our non-free content criteria...unless, evidently, they are performing a part in a role, in which case inclusion is standard. The idea is that new, free images of living persons can be obtained, so we don't need the exception; but I have seen images of deceased persons deleted under that criteria, even though there's no reason to suppose free ones can be found. I'm sure that there must be some good rationale, but it has not been my focus well enough to distinguish what it is.) But I see that there is note concerning the use of the Presidential herald at File:Seal Of The President Of The Unites States Of America.svg: "Display of any likeness of the US Presidential Seal is restricted by US Federal law under 18 USC 713; however, use in encyclopedias "incident to a description or history of seals, coats of arms, heraldry, or the Presidency or Vice Presidency" is allowed under Executive Order 11649." Similarly, there is note about the usage of the Great Seal. I realize that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which are established by consensus, can create additional difficulties in using material, and sometimes the rules seem a bit arbitrary to me. But if you believe that Wikipedia is handling these situations incorrectly or inefficiently, the thing to do is to address the copyright policies and guidelines that are in place so that these can be changed. Often, Wikipedia encourages uses to to do what's best for the project, regardless of rules, but with certain foundational issues like copyright and libel, obviously, this isn't a recommended approach. :)

I am on much more familiar ground with text issues, where our general policy is that if we can't prove that it is free for use, we should not use it. Some of these matters are easily resolved, as with US government works, but some of them are a royal pain to work out. If you should ever feel the need to incorporate something that you can verify to be public domain but that isn't obvious, please place verification of that free use on the talk page. The way that Wikipedia works at the moment is that any contributor can tag a copyright problem, which administrators then must evaluate. If we can't prove it can be used, we have to get rid of it, which would be a pity if there were no reason we should. This is one reason why it would be extremely useful even if you're copying a public domain government source to note where it came from. If some other website has used that text also and attempted to declare copyright ownership of it and we can't find where it originated, we'd wind up having to remove it for no reason.

With your added note, are you saying that this text, [6], came from the IOH or CMH, or are you speaking generally? Can you point us to a free original source for the text that is at [7]? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My only contribution to the Hunterdon County, New Jersey page was the expansion of Section 6 on the Municipalities. The remainder of the article came from others. The legal citations are attached.

You are correct that the 17th Airborne Site is a private site that used information that came from This CMH web page.

SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The material on municipalities is the material that is a copyright concern. While New Jersey laws and statutes are public domain, descriptions of their statutes are not, as mentioned above. We would need explicit release of the source, [8]. With the other, are you able to give us the specific link of the page from which the 17th Airborne Site drew its material? There are a good many links on the CMH web page that you link to. It may be obvious to someone with your background which of those subpages was used, but the specifics would be helpful to someone of mine. The one that seemed like, "Airborne Troops in Ground Operations", wasn't it, evidently, as I didn't find the text duplicated there. If you can't give the link, the name of the section would simplify matters. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading your 17th Airborne question, I quickly looked at the article’s history, and saw that I only had two edits on that page. I immediately went to CMH, and brought over the following link:

17th Airborne Division Combat Chronicle.

That is the source for the section you deleted, and my research has shown me that it is the most succinct version that still gives the important information. The most verbose version that was done by someone known to be credible in the Military History world because he is known to use the CMH sources directly is found at the following source:

Stanton, Shelby L. (1984). Order of Battle: U.S. Army World War II. Novato, California: Presidio Press. pp. 621 W/Index. ISBN 0-89141-195-X.

Stanton’s version runs to two pages, and goes to much greater detail

As for the [9] website, the author there started with the CMH information, and salted it with information from Shelby Stanton’s book, and other less reliable sources. Incidentally, I spent some time going from piller to post on the entire website, and I came away appalled that you would think that I would ever make use of the information provided. Why? Because the owner of the site never properly identifies him/her self, and the obvious reason for the site’s existence is the paraphernalia available for sale on the Store page.

Again, since I have full access to the CMH site, and have always used it as my original source since the days when I started writing these things, making use of Stanton’s book when secondary information is needed, I have avoided Third party military sites as unreliable.

SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the original. This is certainly an excellent reason, as I mentioned above, for using the attribution templates and citing your sources. While you may be appalled that others would think you used information from that source, without indication what source you have used, such misunderstandings are quite likely...particularly as Wikipedia covers many different subjects, and administrators asked to evaluate these concerns could plausibly have never encountered you before. If we identify duplicated text and cannot verify that the text is public domain, other contributors have no recourse but to remove it...which is a shame, if the material genuinely is free for use. (I presume that your note "the section you deleted" is the plural you, since I have never edited that article. I do not know if the material was removed for copyright concerns or other reasons, though, since the edit summary suggests that it might be some other problem in the history of the article. That would be a matter to address with the contributor who removed it.) Again, there are many attribution templates, including one specifically geared towards Army articles, {{US Army}}. If you place this template in the "references" or "sources" section, all you have to do is type: {{Us Army}}, brackets and all, and it will announce that the material is public domain. Please do note, though, that even if you use this template, if you don't tell us the page that it was taken from and we can't find it later, we'll still have to remove it if the text is found on a copyrighted site and the origin is disputed. Even a bald link will do. It doesn't have to be pretty; somebody else will fix it up if given sufficient information to do so. :) (Just as a note, for external links, you don't add the "|" the way you do for interior links. Not [http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/cbtchron/cc/017abd.htm| 17th Airborne Division Combat Chronicle], but [http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/cbtchron/cc/017abd.htm 17th Airborne Division Combat Chronicle]. Otherwise, that external link would be perfectly acceptable to indicate your source.)

Given that your addition to that article seems to have involved only the PD content there, then the only text problem I have myself observed is in respect to the New Jersey statutes. Again, I believe that what is being asked of you by the administrator who blocked you is some indication that you realize that not all text can be copied on Wikipedia and some assurance that you will be careful to ensure that text you place is public domain. I will ask the administrator in question to let us know if I am misrepresenting the situation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moonriddengirl is correct; if you could see your way clear to giving some indication that you will carefully check the source of any material you intend to duplicate verbatim on Wikipedia, and attribute it to that source at the time it's added, I'd be very happy to unblock this account. A lesser concern is that it's rarely, if ever, appropriate to dump text into an article without consideration for its content, placement or appropriateness (as a community we've come up with certain style guides over time that we'd like editors to adhere to if possible, and some of your additions have been driving other editors to distraction!), but this can perhaps be addressed by a note on the article talk-page letting editors know what you're intending to add, and if they don't mind integrating it into the article afterwards. If you feel our style conventions are wrong or inadequate and something like a unit chronicle ought to be present in some articles, because it's a major change that will affect featured articles among others, you might be better served dropping by at WT:MILHIST to propose it for community discussion.

I also really appreciate the patience and restraint you've shown over this block. When presented with something that could put Wikipedia in an awkward legal position, as admins we're left with little choice but to act even when it makes one feel a complete heel for doing so... and doubly so for a long-time editor like you with many excellent contributions under your belt. As I said at the end of my last post, I sincerely hope we can come to an understanding. Regards, EyeSerene^talk 20:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Sorry, I'm having to edit as an ip from the British Library, as these are public computers, but this is Skinny87. I'm happy that this matter seems almost at an end, and I look forward to Cornelius being unblocked. But please, please please, Cornelius, will you pledge to stop copy and pasting huge chunks of text into articles without prior consultation on the article's talkpage? Looking at the 11th, 13th and 17th Airborne Division pages, it's always seemed to me that you never even look at what you were doing before you added the text. Almost all of the time the info you added was already in the article, and cited, and when you added the text it was always poorly placed, pushing text and pictures around, or creating some kind of new lede that ignored the existing, and more detailed, one already there. It's highly irritating, especially moreso when you seemingly fail to communicate on the talkpage when I brought it to your attention.

I understand that you don't look here very often, but surely the orange bar would give you a hint someone is talking to you? And when we did communicate before, on the 13th Airborne Division, you simply stopped talking half-way through a discussion, ignoring a sandbox version of the article I'd created that that incorporated the text you wanted added. So please, will you discuss changes before you make them, or at the very least ensure the information you want to add isn't already in the article? I don't want to make you feel bad, but as I said on EyeSerene's talkpage a few days back, your seemingly (in my view) unthinking additions to the three airborne division pages nearly made me quit wikipedia out of sheer frustration. (Skinny87)

Any actual response to the concerns?

I hope the great length of this unblock discussion won't obscure the fact that Cornelius hasn't made any clear promise to stop doing the very things that led to the original block. He keeps saying that what he did isn't so bad, but his judgment seems to be a private one not shared by the rest of the community. He has never acknowledged that he doesn't make clear attributions so far as I can tell. I don't perceive that he's made any promise to make proper attributions in the future. He has not made any clear answer to the problems noted by Moonriddengirl (the New Jersey documentation involved here, an edit which he made on June 7, with material apparently taken from here without attribution, and the Institute of Heraldry copyrights). If we unblock him, I think we'll be back here soon. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As things stand at the moment, I concur with Ed's assessment. EyeSerene^talk 07:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 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) 21:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 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) 19:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back in summer 2008 you redirected a link for the 1st_Battalion,_68th_Armor_Regiment to the 68th armor regiment. You effectively shut down and stole this Battalion's link then redirected to a site for the 68th Regiment. Vary uncool! Does the Ford 'Mustang" have its own Wikipedia site different from the 'Ford Motor Company'??? yes it does. I have removed the redirect to the Regiment and I am in the process of setting up the 1st_Battalion,_68th_Armor_Regiment so its the best Wikipedia page on Wikipedia PERIOD. As you state your getting ready to retire from your 2nd career after the military. If that's the case then its most likely you never were in 1-68 as it was reactivated only in the 90's so just go back to the trains or whatever it is that you like to screw up or copy right and leave my stuff alone! (one thing I learned about tankers is they aren't that smart and they like to remove the floor plates of their tank so they can go to the "bathroom" inside of the tank!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemgod3 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comparison of the 1st Battalion, 68th Armor (properly abbreviated as 1/68th Armor) with the Ford Mustang is inaccurate. 1/68th Armor is an ORGANIC part of 68th Armored Regiment, and therefore shares its history as well as its Chain Of Command with the rest of the 68th Armored Regiment, with the singular exception of Honors earned by one or more Organic Elements when deployed separately, and in Combat. As recently as World War Two, there was such a thing as Separate Battalions within the Infantry, but most of them have been assigned to Regiments since then. The primary difference between Organic Battalions, which are identified by a number that is separated from the Regimental Number by a "/", is that Organic Battalions - normally - cannot operate on their own, and must depend on another unit - normally a Higher Headquarters - for Housekeeping, Supply and Support activities. When Organic Battalions ARE deployed without their Regiment, they are normally attached to another unit for Housekeeping, Supply and Support purposes, and often are attached to an Organic combat unit to augment that unit's combat strength.

Separate Battalions have every element necessary to operate without a Higher Headquarters, and are identified by a number that makes no reference to a high headquarters. Today, they are rare in any of the Combat Arms, except for the separate Engineer Battalions. As such, Organic Battalions should NOT be separated from their Higher Headquarters because they are NO separate units.

NOW. If your real issue is using a separate Wikipedia Page for each Battalion of a Regiment, then you and I can agree that there is a case to be made for that. Simply make the Battalion page a sub-page of the Regimental page. That will retain the direct connection between the Regiment and its subordinate Battalions, and still provide sufficient space on each page for all the information relevant to that page.-SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely that many battalions would be notable enough to warrant their own wikipedia pages - regiment is probably the furthest you'll be able to go. Skinny87 (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Skinny87 that there aren't many notible Organic Combat Arms Battalions, but most of the history of the Engineers revolves around the Battalion. Likewise, outside the Combat Arms, the Battalion is the normal Operational Unit, with the Company as the alternative. BTW, another point to Chemgod3, 68th Armor was created on October 1, 1933 from units that date back to World War One, specifically the units that George Patton commanded during that war. 68th Armor was originally 68th Infantry Regiment (Light Tanks), and 1st Battalion was created from Company A, 327th Battalion, Tank Corps, AEF, which dated from June 7, 1918 with an earlier name 2nd Battalion also dates from that period, and was created from Company C, 328th Battalion, Tank Corps, which was one of the units commanded by Eisenhower at Camp Colt, Pennsylvania udring the war. Other Battalions of the 68th Armor date from Companies from those two Battalions, or 1st Tank Center, AEF, which was the exact Headquarters that George Patton commanded in World War One. The reason why you don't have that information is because USACMH published abbreviated information on the history of 68th Armor. I know about the fuller history because I have the First Edition of the CMH Book on the history of American Armor and Cavalry. So, whereas you are right that I did NOT serve with 68 Armor, I do know about the unit's history.-SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I can side with a subpage under the Regiment. The problem is there really isnt a held standard if you look around at different military unit wikipedia sites. true there is a "standard" its just everyone is doing their own thing. What can you do? Chemgod3 (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is an easy solution, and I had to go over to Wikisource to find it. If you format the Regiment as the main page, and then put a section that lists the Battalions by name, the way to wikilink those subpages to the main page is to put the following construct in that list:

*[[/SubPageName]],

with tne name of the subpage substituted for the word SubPageName. The use of the Asterisk before the opening bracket signals that you are assembling a list of subpages as part of that article. The result will show up on the Subpage as a file heading that starts with the name of the Main Page, followed by the name of the Sub Page, separated by a "/. The Subpage name will show up alone on the Main Page. Try it, I think you will like it.

As to Standardization, may I suggest that you use the model used by the US Army Center of Military History as a template, modified - of course - to include information they don't supply? That is pretty much what I did in the articles I originated, and I was the first to start these articles in 2005. I would also suggest that we need to establish a team of Editors who would have the major job of cleaning up the articles and bringing them over to an established standard. They also would have the job of Rewrite, reconciling the information in an article or series of articles to eliminate duplication, and clean up the text so it flows better. This suggestion would have the added benefit of eliminating the Take-No-Prisoners form of discipline that is rampant here on Wikipedia, and has made the name of Wikipedia such a sour lemon elsewhere.-SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Actually, and I apologize for butting in again, I would hold off placing the individual battalion pages in mainspace, and would instead build them up in userspace first. Whilst the regiment would be notable, the battalions probably wouldn't; it's an issue I want to bring up at the MILHIST wikiproject. There was a discussion on the British Army sub-project about the notability of Territorial Army Battalions, which resulted in them being redirected back to the regiment's page. At the same time, I'm looking at the battalion pages for the battalions of the British Parachute Regiment, trying to work out whether they are notable or not. So, I'd suggest holding firre for now and perhaps only building up the regiment's page until this is sorted out. Skinny87 (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion linked to here for your convenience. Since you're blocked, CORNELIUSSEON, I realize you won't be able to comment. But if you want to, post your comments here and I'll happily add them to the discussion.

From the beginnings of the discussion, it would seem consensus is moving towards independent battalions being notable, but battalions that remain with a regiment not being notable, with certain exceptions. Of course, it's still early days, but I would again suggest writing the article for a battlion in userspace, and then asking Wikiproject: Military History whether it would be notable. Skinny87 (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the first place, prior to the Spanish American war, there wasn't any consistent organization or history of US Army units, except for the National Guard. Also, prior to World War One, Combat Arms Regiments did not have "Battalions" in the modern sense. What they had was 12 Line Companies/Troops/Batteries that were lettered from "A" through "L", and a Headquarters Company/Troop/Battery for the Regiment. The Battalion Element was a Battalion Headquarters that had a handful of specialist personnel that provided unique skills for the company level units under the battalion, with the Commander of the lowest lettered Company also acting as Battalion Commander. The Battalion only came into being on the Battlefield to control the actions of its four Line Companies, and as such had no permanence. The Combat Arms Battalions evolved over time, but the Permanent Battalion didn't come to exist until World War One, and the various Ordnance, Quartermaster, Signal and other functions found today in the Battalion did not come together under the Battalion banner until World War Two when the organization of Combat Arms units was simplified from Division down to Company. The Army currently is re-visiting the issue of deploying Combat Arms units at the Battalion level, which brings back the issue of maintaining the history of the Regiment as one unit. If you look at the Regiments I posted, you will see that I simplified the Lineage and Honors sections by consolidating all of the subordinate units into a single time line and a single Honors List with Honors belonging to specific Subordinate units identified by Citations whee appropriate. Let me know if you need more.-SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations open 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 12 September!
Many thanks, Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 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) 19:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators, Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 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) 23:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 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) 18:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 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) 04:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

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 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 1st Armored Division Garrisons

The article 1st Armored Division Garrisons has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

all the information is already in the article 1st Armored Division (United States). this page is superflous.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noclador (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team, Roger Davies ^talk 21:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, CORNELIUSSEON! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]