User talk:Lineagegeek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WELCOME TO MY TALK PAGE!
Leave me message·My archive


Contents

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Lineagegeek, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Pinkstrawberry02talk 13:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Inactivate versus deactivate[edit]

In a recent reversion of the terminology, the action was not without some deliberate thought and after research, delving into etymology, before making any reversions. If you are saying that "inactivate" is the proper military terminology, that is news to me as the process of deactivating a base or unit is to make it "inactive". See:<http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/MayJun08/deactivate_review.html> Even the dictionary definitions of the terms do not support the use of "inactivate" as most style guides refer the author/reader to "deactivate" as the proper use. There are even writers that claim that the adjective: "inactive" is proper while the verb: "inactivate" is not. FWiW, no style guides support the use of "inactivate" as it is seen as an example of an affectation or even "made-up" word. Bzuk (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC).

(talk page stalker) I think WP:JARGON may apply. While 'inactivate' may well be the official terminology, 'deactivate' is what's commonly used. Since it isn't wrong, per se, using the term more people will recognise might be preferable. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I disagree that "deactivate" (or the noun "deactivation") is more commonly used than "inactivate", although I would be happy to see support for this. (see below) I also disagree that the word "inactivate" is either jargon or more difficult to understand than "deactivate." "Inactivate" (with respect to US Army and Air Force units) also has the benefit of distinguishing what was done from other terms like "disband" or "demobilize" that "deactivate" does not do.
I would also be surprised to see the distinction between the words made in style guides with regard to military units. I did a little Googling in response to the style guides issue and did find one flat assertion [1] that "inactivate" should never be used. As for actual usage (and response to whether "inactivate" is really a word), there is one response that the Corpus of Contemporary American English (not familiar to me) gives 88 examples of "inactivate" and 102 for "deactivate" (indicating actual usage is fairly even) while another response indicated 8,180,000 Google results for "deactivate" and 17,600,000 for "inactivate. [2] (speculating specifically that the results may be skewed by military (and scientific) usage).
I have refrained from changing the term with regard to bases, although I believe in that case the simple word "closed" is approprate in about 7/10ths of the cases. I also refrain from changing the term when it appears with non-USAF units. (Although it would be appropriate for US Army and inappropriate for US Navy units) Finally, if I knew anything about your senses of humor, I would make a closing remark, but experience tells me that humor in emails, blogs, or whatever frequently is misunderstood and never in favor (or favour) of the one who believes he is being humorous.--Lineagegeek (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I can't speak for the Buschman (not an Aussie as far as I can tell, but an aficionado of the bang-'em-up sport), but my sense of humour is definitely (Note the Canadianism, I is Canajan, and sometimes classified for whatever purposes, as an official historian of the Royal Canadian Air Force, so that alone has to be accompanied by a sense of impropriety, at least) out-of-whack. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC).

Not sure what google results you have, but on my basic search of terms, "deactivate" is overwhelmingly the more common usage, by a factor of 7X or more. "Inactivate" is most often associated with a biological or medical term, and does not appear in the DOD Dictionary of Military Terms, although "inactive" does, as well as "deactivate." Just sayin', Bzuk (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I was following the statement on the linked page concerning Google. Trying it myself got about what you did (to 15,200,000 to 2,630,000), although using the past tense of both verbs (because it would be more frequent in references to military units evens things out, even giving a slight edge to "inactivate" (1,640,000 to 1,800,000). I seem to have stored my copy of the OED so well I can't find it despite searching for several days, but other dictionaries seem to add military use as well as the scientific use you cite in entries for inactivate.
First meaning listed: Release from military service or remove from the active list of military service
  • Websters Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged)
Second meaning listed: to remove a military unit from the active list without disbanding.

Lineagegeek (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Inactivation[edit]

Please look at the two edits I made prior to this if you have time. I have two copies of The United States Air Force Dictionary. Deactivate is in it with this note: ""Deactivate" is not considered good usage in the AF. See activate." Inactivate, inactivated and inactivation are listed as the preferred United States Air Force usage. Would you like a copy? Thank you for your service to our country. Welcome Home! GBU. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Based on a couple of different sources. I have made the same change frequently, but confine myself to units (although I think facilities should usually be "closed" rather than "deactivated.") I usually mark the changes as minor copyedits if I do nothing else to the article. But at any rate a .pdf or .doc of the dictionary would be a useful reference.--Lineagegeek (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The two copies of The United States Air Force Dictionary I have are books, not files. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 06:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Inactivated vs deactivate[edit]

My bad. Deactivate tends to be a NATO term and figured it was the same for the USAF. Gotta love the jargon. Just don't tell me you cal UAVs 'uninhabited aerial vehicles' because then we just can never be friends...at all. lol Superfly94 (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The 443d Operations Group (and the 443d Military Airlift Wing)[edit]

January 2015[edit]

Do your worst and put it here, Bracketbot! Although your worst efforts cannot match Anomiebot's habit of creating edit conflicts with an hour of careful editing and sourcing so that it can date a tag you put on the last time I saved my work. And it does it because it is bored?

Chickening out, I see. Not a single misplaced bracket for months? Sorry to see you go, you were actually a useful (if annoying) tool. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

December Wikification drive.[edit]

Greetings! Just letting you know the December wikification drive has been started. Better late than never. Cheers! :) Heading for the 20's, living in the Wild Wild Wikipedia! (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open![edit]

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open![edit]

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open![edit]

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Can You Help Me? (Re: DPLbot, et al)[edit]

Merry Merry[edit]

To you and yours

Weihnachtsschmuck.JPG

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CV, December 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Fuochi d'artificio.gif

Dear Lineagegeek,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Unable to upload image correction for WWII 730 Bomb Squadron, 452nd Bomb Group, 8th Air Force[edit]

WoolfPack (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Image uploading instructions are extremely complex and impossible to follow.

Have you tried using the Upload Wizard? It will open if you click the "Upload file" on the menu on the left side of the screen in Wikimedia Commons.

On the first screen you'll be asked to select media files to share. That gives you two choices, select another file or continue.
The next screen will start the copyright check. It'll ask if this is your own work or not. If it's your own work, it will start asking you to describe the image and select a category, like Emblems of the United States Army Air Forces bomber squadrons. Then you just click to upload. If it's not your own work, it will ask you for a source, and some questions to indicate it is exempt from copyright laws or that the copyright owned gives permission for its use. If it was an official pictur, just note that it's a government work. --Lineagegeek (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

December 2014 Wikification awards.[edit]

The WikiProject Wikify Trophy.png The WikiProject Wikify Trophy
For scoring 1st place on the leaderboard during the December 2014 Wikification drive, you are hereby awarded the WikiProject Wikify Trophy. Congratulations!
Iron Wikification Barnstar.png The Iron Wikification Barnstar
For wikifying 27 articles, you are also awarded the Iron Wikification barnstar. Keep up the good work!!!

Cheers! Fellow editors, we are like keys in a cod... Oh, don't say that doesn't make sense! (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 42d Air Base Wing[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 42d Air Base Wing you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Never tried GA before, so we'll see where it goes --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

October–December 2014 Milhist reviewing award[edit]

Wiki-stripe1.svg Military history reviewers' award
For completing 1 review during October–December 2014, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Military history reviewers' award. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

14 AD and 14 AD (P)[edit]

Should we merge all the info about the 14th AD(P) in Organization of United States Air Force Units in the Gulf War into 14th Air Division? If not, why not? What do the lineage rules say? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

No, they are not the same unit. There are a few rare cases where provisional units have become regular units (1st Reconnaissance Squadron. 971st Airborne Warning and Control Squadron), but the usual rule is that provisional unit histories only include the time they were in existence. The rule for expeditionary units is different. "Rainbow" units do continue lineages, but when one active unit is the major force provider and the expeditionary unit has the same name (except for the "expeditionary"), it's a separate unit.

The official Lineage & Honors statement for the 14th Air Division was prepared in 2007 and you can see it makes no mention of Gulf War participation. [3]

As examples of provisional air divisions (ignoring 4 digits), the 15th, 16th, and 17th Air Divisions (P) also existed for Desert Storm, but there was also an Air Division, P, 17 for three years during the Vietnam War as well. To show how messy it gets (all US units), There was a 1st Air Division in the Organized Reserve from 1924-1928 (disbanded 1933), and another from 1935-1936 (disbanded 1942) in addition to the 1st Air Division. Plus a 1st Air Division (Provisional) in 1931 for an exercise, and an Air Division, Provisional 1 at Homestead AFB for the Cuban missile crisis.

My approach (I've only partially done this) is for the short-lived provisional divisions that have some notability (Desert Storm, Cuban missile crisis) and are mentioned in existing articles to be redirected to the mentions, at least until there is enough material to create a separate article, when a headnote can be added to the permanent unit article. The redirects can have the air division category added. Separately, provisional (and other) divisions lacking notability can be added to List of United States Air Force air divisions.

BTW, many years ago the 14th Strategic Aerospace Division was in my chain of command. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Cool!! Great thanks for your quick answer. What I would like to do is break down the page USAF units in the Gulf War and create division pages that link directly to the CENTAF article. This half-way house page is not well incorporated into the CENTAF page and doesn't really help things. I found the commander for 14 AP(P), but got stumped on the commander of AD, P, 15, though I haven't started looking for the commander of 1610 AD (P) yet. Any objection to this long-term objective? For the 17 AD (P), could we find enough information to create a full article for the 17th Air Division (Provisional) for Vietnam and the Gulf War? And were you aware of the 33 AF (P), that Bwmoll3 managed to get the org card from USAF HRA for? Do you have any more info about it? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
EAMC: Thankyou, I appreciate it. But what bugs me is the complete lack of references. Can you supply references for your statements at the talkpage? Then I can happily leave or further rewrite - right now I would be technically justified in removing it again for lack of refs... Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 08:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done

February 2015 Wikification drive[edit]

Greetings! Just spreading a message to the members of WikiProject Wikify that the February drive has been started. Better late than never! Come on, sign up! :) Grinding, grinding, grinding... what are we finding, finding, finding... (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day!!![edit]

Happy Valentine's Day, to you and yours! Cheers, Grinding, grinding, grinding... what are we finding, finding, finding... (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Removing disestablishment categories from USAF units[edit]

I understand that you are strongly opposed to using the incorrect terminology as regards USAF units, but it's that terminology that just happens to be used for *all* military units. I'm really concerned about you doing this, and it appears to be almost on the verge of being WP:POINTY. This isn't a term I want to apply to your usually very helpful edits. I would like you to stop removing the categories that others have, in some cases, spent heaps of time to add. I'm quite happy to discuss compromises, but you're now removing info from the encyclopedia without replacement. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I presume you added this in response to my reversion of an inappropriate "disestablishment" in mid February. I'd like to point out that this particular edit was immediately reverted by the editor adding the category and I began a discussion on the article talk page which was never responded to by the editor in question. Since then there has been much activity by that editor, mostly in the area of "(year) disestablishments in (geographical regions)", which I have been willing to let stand (despite their inaccuracy) as potential search terms by readers interested in geography, rather than the military. However, the spending of "heaps of time" adding inaccurate information to Wikipedia is not a criterion for leaving information on Wikipedia. The former editor who created the vast majority of USAF unit Wikipedia articles certainly spent far more time doing that but not all his edits were accurate and failing to correct them is not justified if Wikipedia is to be accurate.
I do not, however, agree with leaving inaccurate military categories affirming disestablishment standing. The fact that units were not disestablished is far move likely to mislead in these categories. I am perfectly willing to correct these entries if appropriate. For example, if an article on Air Service Command (currently a redirect, although it should not be) were to be placed in [[Category:Units disestablished in 1944]] (the year it was last active), I would be perfectly happy to move it to [[Category:Units disestablished in 1984]] (the year it was actually disbanded) However, I will continue to revert the placement of USAF units into military categories dealing with disestablishment when they have not been disestablished. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah-ha!! I thought you were on your usual warpath of 'deactivate' versus 'inactivate'. No, definitely, we need to put them in the right year category. Personally I believe the disestablishment date in the category should be when the unit was physically folded up and equipment and personnel dispersed, rather than the disbandment date, which might be decades later, but that is a point upon which there's room for legitimate discussion. Yes, I'm also spending significant amounts of time trying to clean up after the editor you speak of (you just thanked me for one of a series of edits in this regard). Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Flying Division, Air Training Command, I've just updated my initial vague adding without looking at the article closely from 'the 1940s' to '1949.' Are we on the same page here? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015 Wikification awards![edit]

The WikiProject Wikify Trophy.png The WikiProject Wikify Trophy
For scoring #1 on the leaderboard during the February 2015 Wikification drive, you are hereby awarded the WikiProject Wikify Trophy! Congratulations!
Bronze Wikification Barnstar.png The Bronze Wikification Barnstar
For wikifying 30 articles, you are also awarded the Bronze Wikification Barnstar. Keep up the good work! :)

Cheers! One hand on the mouse, one hand on the keyboard... and the feet can do the rest! Hee-hee! (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 42d Air Base Wing[edit]

The article 42d Air Base Wing you nominated as a good article has failed Symbol oppose vote.svg; see Talk:42d Air Base Wing for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 Wikification drive.[edit]

Greetings! Just spreading a message to the members of WikiProject Wikify that the April drive has been started. Come on, sign up! :) One hand on the mouse, one hand on the keyboard... and the feet can do the rest! Hee-hee! (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

IX Air Force Service Command[edit]

I've got a start for IX ASC / IX AFSC / EAMC currently located at EAMC. Have you any idea how I might located the assignments, components, lineage, constituent units etc? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You might try going to Air Force History Index and using the various designations as search terms.

Here's what to look for:

  • Constituted as 9th Air Force Service Command
Activated on 27 July 1942
Redesignated IX Air Force Service Command on 18 September 1942
Redesignated IX Air Service Command in 1943
Redesignated IX Air Force Service Command on 24 January 1944
Redesignated European Air Materiel Command on 7 October 1946
Inactivated on 15 September 1947
  • Disbanded on 8 October 1948

Assigned to

  • 3d Air Force by September 1942
  • Air Service Command, September 1942
  • Ninth Air Force, November 1942
  • Twelfth Air Force, August 1943
  • Ninth Air Force,

Stationed at

  • MacDill Field, Florida, 27 July 1942
  • Patterson Field, Ohio, September 1942
  • Tinker Field, Oklahoma October 1942
  • Camp Kilmer, New Jersey, October 1942
  • Camp Russell B. Huckstep, Egypt, November 1942
  • Cairo, Egypt, 12 November 1942
  • Egypt, February 1943
  • Welford Park, England, October 1943
  • Bushy Park, England, October 1943
  • RAF Grove, England, October 1943
  • Sunninghill Park, England, November 1943
  • RAF Ascot, England, May 1944
  • Creil, France, September 1944
  • Luxemburg, August 1945
  • AAF Station, Erlangen (later Erlangen Air Base), Germany 15 August 1945 - 15 September 1947

Dates and station at MacDill, Patterson and Tinker should be in Mueller, Robert (1989). Air Force Bases, Vol. I, Active Air Force Bases Within the United States of America on 17 September 1982 (PDF). Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History. ISBN 0-912799-53-6. 

Dates and stations in England should be in Anderson, Capt. Barry (1985). Army Air Forces Stations: A Guide to the Stations Where U.S. Army Air Forces Personnel Served in the United Kingdom During World War II (PDF). Maxwell AFB, AL: Research Division, USAF Historical Research Center. Retrieved July 7, 2012. 

Dates and stations for Continental Stations through 1945 should be in Johnson, 1st Lt. David C. (1988). U.S. Army Air Forces Continental Airfields (ETO) D-Day to V-E Day (PDF). Maxwell AFB, AL: Research Division, USAF Historical Research Center. 

Details of operation and organization should be in the appropriate Volumes of Craven & Cate. Also in the numbered studies at AFHRA Studies, particularly Nos. 30, 36, 108, possibly 96 & 102 if they discuss logistical support

Thankyou LG (if I might be so familiar).. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy Easter![edit]

All the best! "Carry me down, carry me down; carry me down into the wiki!" (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement[edit]

Flest utökade.svg

You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement. This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaboration has begun at Week 18 of 2015. Thanks for your consideration! North America1000 20:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be light on Wiki for a little bit while traveling, but I'll keep it in mind. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikify-ing articles[edit]

Hi Lineagegeek!
I looked at some of the articles that you wikified for the WikiProject Wikify drive, and I didn't know if you are aware that wikifiers are supposed to clean up the the reference formatting of articles as well as add infoboxes. Adding citation info to bare urls and repairing link rot may seem like insignificant work, but it really does improve the quality of an article as a whole. Thanks! ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 02:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem. None of the articles were tagged for reference problems, so I didn't notice there were additional issues there. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

44th Air Division[edit]

This may come in under cleaning up after departed editors again, depending on how you see it: we have articles both on the 44th Air Division and the 99th Bombardment Wing (World War II). I can easily merge them to the most recent as per MILUNIT, but thought I should alert you in case you had any comments. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Despite the quick reply, I'm traveling this month and only checking Wikipedia about once a week or so. This seems like a good idea. I've added a comment on the 44th AD talk page. I've been going through Air Division pages, aiming to get them to at least C status, but started with the 800 series. --Lineagegeek (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 2015[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Martin AN/FSG-1 Antiaircraft Defense System and Missile Master potential merge[edit]

As you'll remember, we talked some time ago about User:30 SW's confusing and in some case literally untrue edits. I've been doing some work trying to clear up after him, most regarding USAF bases, but wanted to get a second opinion regarding the two articles above. The first appears to be the electronics systems installed in the protective bunkers which are the subject of the second article. Neither is a very long article and both are incredible obtusely written. (I think I know this stuff reasonably well, and I have a hard time following 30 SW's articles). I believe they are prime candidates for merger and simplification in the process. So, would you disagree?, and second, are there any other expert editors I should check with? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The Missile Master article talks about the system as if the sites were the "Missile Master"s, which I believe is inaccurate. Kind of like saying a SAGE director site was SAGE. In addition the article seems to be mostly anecdotes about individual locations. I tried following a couple of the references, but got dead links. I'd think Missile Master would be the common name, rather than the AN designation for the system. --Lineagegeek (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For your, er, rescue of the 57th Rescue Squadron!! Now we know where it came from, and that it's not the 56th!! Buckshot06 (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully, AFHRA will put a factsheet on their web page so a secondary source can be cited for lineage (including a redesignation date). --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

L&H, AARC/40th Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Wing[edit]

Where would we get this? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

My apologies; there's some data at http://www.airforcehistoryindex.org/search.php?q=%22WING%2F0040%2FAEROSPACE+RESCUE+AND+RECOVERY%22&c=u&h=25&F=&L=
Many thanks for your explanation of the re-numbering history since the consolidations of the 1980s: much appreciated. Maybe 562 and 572 were skipped because there was an opportunity seen to reactivate one of the ARCW series numbers? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 Wikification awards.[edit]

The Greater Working Wikifier's Barnstar.png The Greater Working Wikifier's Barnstar
For scoring 3rd place on the leaderboard during the 2015 Wikification Backlog drive, you are hereby awarded the Greater Working Wikifier's Barnstar! Congratulations!
Iron Wikification Barnstar.png The Iron Wikification Barnstar
For wikifying 19 articles, you are also awarded the Iron Wikification Barnstar. Keep up the good work!

Cheers! :) "A wiki of beauty is a joy forever." Seriously. That's how long it'd take to read! (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

582d Expeditionary Airlift Squadron[edit]

The article may not include the 582 ARCW period fully. Would you please take a quick look? Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what article you're referring to. If it's the 582nd Air Resupply and Communications Wing article, it's both incomplete and has errors (some of which I corrected yesterday). There does not seem to be a 582d Expeditionary Airlift Squadron article. --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
My apologies. Squadron in question was the 42d Troop Carrier Squadron, Medium (Special), now the 42nd Expeditionary Airlift Squadron. However, the history that is missing was that of the 582 ARCS, which was of course under that designation. It would be good for you to check the 42 EAS though.
Prefer 'After September 11' to any vague, generic 'expeditionary service' or other term. Would consider 'Post Cold War' to be c.89-91 through to Sept 11, and 'After Sept 11' after that. But this is a capital, fantastic way of bringing the Milhist community into a sphere that has been dominated by over-adherence to USAF conventions, and thus yes we should raise this at MilHist.
Finally, always happen to entertain an invitation to the OK Corral to settle our differences over category dates. Suggest we amicably resolve weapons selection between sabres, pistols, or M16/M203. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Full disclosure, I qualified as expert on the M-16. --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Al-Shabaab-ISIS in Wikipedia[edit]

Hi, I have read the interesting comments about user:Middayexpress done by user:Buckshot06 (who gave you a "Barnstar" last 05/02/15). Of course I agree with him, but I want to add the following information, in case you want to investigate the "Al-Shabaab-ISIS" issue & presence on Wikipedia. This investigation is being done even on the website of Mappista59 (read: https://www.blogger.com/profile/17629549463392207787 Thanks anyway:

MIDDAYEXPRESS: supposed involvement in MUSLIM TERRORISM SUPPORT

She is a Somali woman (according to user Chuckupd and others) living in the UK, probably in London, who is accused to be with "pathological behavior" while controlling in en.wiki all articles on Somalia. She has caused to abandon Wikipedia at least one user (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chuckupd), who wrote that "I'm not the only one being attacked (by Middayexpress) without mercy" and "Middayexpress, you are hopelessly insane " and finally "I give up on Wikipedia. Middayexpress has accused me with so many lies that it has become unbearably depressing. I'm not the only one being attacked without mercy. One of these days, I hope she will be banned and then I might consider returning here."

Another wiki user (user: Buckshot06) wrote that "Middayexpress is in long-standing, continual violation of WP:NPOV, continually rolls back edits that do not reflect his views (IDONTLIKEIT/Disruptive editing, plus WP:UNDUE over-positive views of the Somali situation), and continually attempts to WP:OWN a wide range of Somalia articles." And this statement was supported by User:Bobrayner, who wrote that "I share Buckshot06's concerns. However, I feel the problem may be more widespread, as I have seen Middayexpress doing the same kind of pov-pushing on other articles related to Somalia and the surrounding region".

Buckshot06 wrote (on 17 February 2014): "Middayexpress, I remain increasingly concerned about your distortions of sources in both these articles. Beyond the issue of the TFG's security forces in Mogadishu in December 2006-January 2007, these include putting words in the mouth of a senior Ethiopian official, who did not say that Ethiopia had 8,000 troops in Somalia in November 2013, distorting a meeting between Italian and Somali officials in 2012 into a claim that Somali had started rebuilding its air force in 2000-2010, and inventing aircraft numbers and entire aircraft from the Library of Congress Country Study. Why do you continually readd the SM-1019s that are not listed in the Country Study?".....and user Nick-D (talk) added:" I've noticed that your edits to these articles seem to put an unduly positive "spin" on things. For instance, in your most recent edit to the Somali Civil War article [1] you removed material sourced to a January 2013 academic journal article by Laura Hammond in which she argued that "[M]uch of rural Somalia remains in the hands of al-Shabaab" and replaced it with more positive material sourced to a November 2012 news story which argues that 85% of the country was under government control at the time. You did not provide a rationale for this change (especially removing material outright rather than noting differing viewpoints) and I'm wondering why you made this change?"

User:Gobonobo added the negative comments that "Middayexpress can be a difficult editor to work with. Middayexpress tends to exert ownership over Somalia-related articles, employing an editing style that is combative and adversarial, often refactoring other's contributions and/or edit-warring to preserve their preferred version of an article. Sometimes Middayexpress exhibits tendentious behavior, removing sourced material that is critical of Somalia or Somali people". Additionally User:StoneProphet pinpointed that Middayexpress did "rampant cherry-picking of sources and content".

Middaexpress had fights from his first wiki-moments even with admins (like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kwamikagami/old , who accused Middayexpress of "violating basic Wikipedia policy") and with many other users.

Middayexpress has even insulted users, like User:Sherurcij, who was called "racist" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somalia_Affair&action=historysubmit&diff=303950062&oldid=303948740 ).

Middayexpress was "restricted" from posting by admin EdJohnston for some months in June 2010, after an edit-warring with user StoneProphet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Middayexpress/Archive_11).

User:Baboon43 accused Middayexpress of meatpuppetry in a sockpuppet investigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Runehelmet/Archive ). He wrote: "Middayexpress is a meatpuppet master for Runehelmet as seen on Runehelmets talk page once middayexpress began into a dispute with me he went over to call runehelmet into the discussion 27 and rune also does the same vice versa 28..These two individuals would rather have a page dominated by somali-centric material and seem to turn a blind eye on other ethnic groups as seen here 29..Gyrofrog does not enter discussion on a wide scale like Runehelmet does so that is not comparable..If an editor pushes pov and seems to take your side in a discussion always and you go invite him then that is not acceptable..also your example about you and runehelmet disagreeing on article doesnt matter because that article is strictly somali oriented(squabbling in your own pot)..runehelmet would rather tag team if possible based on his behavior & he prefers to tag team strictly with Middayexpress....User Runehelmet also seems like a meatpuppet for User_talk:Middayexpress as clearly seen on runehelmets talk page [6]..midday passes on articles for runehelmet to add on his watchlist clearing way for both users to appear on WP:OBSART and wp:CAN..it seems other users have brought up their behavior in previous discussion 7..middayexpress invites runehelmet to discussions which is also clearly seen on the talk page..they back each other to push consensus seen here [8] & [9]..also the only time Runehelmet seems to accept consensus in a dispute is if middayexpress enters the discussion as seen here [10] & [11]" Baboon43 (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Furthermore, user:AcidSnow looks like a "meatpuppet" of Middayexpress, and always helps her in all her discussions on Somalia.

User:Bricology found that Middaexpress was "hiding it in a long, dense and relatively undifferentiated timeline" the issue of poaching as a source of funds for the Somalian terrorist group Al-Shabaab. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Shabaab_(militant_group)#Moving_on...). He even wrote: "Middayexpress, you either presume that you have the power to unilaterally change other editors' work or you misunderstand the relevant issue, or both".

This tentative to "help" the image of Al-Shabaab in Wikipedia (similar to the one denounced by user Nick-D ) raises doubts, and creates the possibility that Middayexpress has a supposed involvement in Muslim terrorism support. Indeed she has an astonishing knowledge of Al-Shabaab activity in the last years: this knowledge can only be possessed by an insider (or a closely-related insider) of this terrorist organization!

Furthermore, Middayexpress has shown a "fanatical hate" (similar to the one of members of Al-Shabaab) against Christianity in Somalia, as is clearly evidenced from her cancellation of serious bibliography and data in the voice "Roman Catholicism in Somalia" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Catholicism_in_Somalia&oldid=320544261): she has made disappear that "The Bishop of Mogadishu, Franco Filippini, declared in 1940 that there were about 40,000 Somali Catholics due to the work of missionaries in the rural regions of Juba and Shebelle, but WWII damaged in an irreversibly way most of the catholic missions in Italian Somalia. She angrily (as a possible al-Shabaab member or sympathizer) denied her POV-caused disappearances (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roman_Catholicism_in_Somalia&oldid=320948362).

Middayexpress even attacked with continuous "malignity" user Oldsettler accusing him of sockpuppetry until she obtained the help of "wikimafia" user Vituzzu (read about this Sicilian-calabrese: The Stewarts are firmly in control): she wanted and obtained to "decapitate without pity in Wikipedia" Oldsettler with the same kind of malignity & hate shown in Syria by ISIS terrorists. Oldsettler wrote "The malignity of this Middayexpress is unbelievable. Why against me? I have never done anything with him/her or against him/her, but -after obtaining to erase my dad's photo- now attacks me continuously repeating the same accusations again and again and again with his/her typical "byzantine phrases" full of the same things. I have read his/her 60 archives and I have found that he/she is a Somalian living in the UK (probably in the London area full of supporters of ISIS (read [46]) and that he/she has had "fightings" with many wikipedians. He/she has collected many blocks and menaces of blocks for his/her continuous edit-warrings and seems to promote muslim POVs in a way that remembers the religious fanatism: most important to me, he/she seems to "hate" colonialism and western colonialists, so probably he/she identifies me with the Italians who colonized Somalia....and this can explain his/her attacks against me."

Furthermore Vituzzu is known in the Italian wiki as one of the main bosses of the “Italian wikimafia”. Some websites denounce him, like “Wikiperle” (read in Italian : htp://wikiperle.blogspot.com/2013/05/wikipedia-mai-criticare-la-famiglia.html) and “Perle Complottiste” (read: http://complottismo.blogspot.com/search/label/Vituzzu?max-results=100 ) and so do many Italian wikiusers (read in Italian: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Amministratori/Riconferma_annuale/Vituzzu/3 ; http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Amministratori/Riconferma_annuale/Archivio/Archivio_riconferme_tacite/2012#Vituzzu ; http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Amministratori/Riconferma_annuale/Archivio/Archivio_riconferme_tacite/2013#Vituzzu ). Vituzzu -he is from Calabria, the home of Ndrangheta (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/02/150224083921277.html)- has even been "blocked" many times in the Italian Wikipedia, even if he is an admin, and "strangely" survived without ever being banned (http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?titl… ): but this could only be possible because of his powerful "mafia" relationships!).

This help from wikimafia Vituzzu could or seems to be related to the growing relationship between muslim terrorism organizations and the mafia against & inside the Christian Western industrial societies (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PZMgorG2ojMJ:www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201211/20121127ATT56707/20121127ATT56707EN.pdf+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us): may be it is even related -as a clear possible proof- to the Middayexpress supposed involvement in Muslim terrorism support. Even a possible link to Al-Kaeda cannot be excluded, because of the growing contacts between Somalian Al-Shabaab and ISIS (read: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/03/24/isis-reaches-out-to-somali-terror-group-al-shabaab/ ).

Indeed in London, between some members of the huge Somalian community, there it is a growing "hidden" support for Al-Shabaab; and Middaexpress seems to live there (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2964218/Somali-terror-group-Al-Shabaab-calls-Westgate-style-shopping-centre-attack-London-s-Oxford-Street-chilling-new-video.html ).

If interested in further in formation, please go to http://www.trackingterrorism.org/group/north-london-boys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.188.54 (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Portal placement in articles[edit]

Hi LG. Thankyou for pointing me towards the guideline that you're following regarding portal placement in articles. The reason I've been moving the portals is for better layout. If the 'See also' section is empty, my understanding of the guidelines is that it should not exist, because a full FA would have all the links in the articles. So I try and incorporate all the See Also articles into the main article text. This may leave the 'See also' section empty. If so, rather than have an empty section, with a lonely-looking portal box off to the right side, I move the portal box somewhere else where it looks like it may fit - like the large empty spaces that sometimes exist - in my browser, at least - in the references section. Now I looked at the guideline you cite, and it does not say '..Portals shall always be placed in See Also sections', it says 'Portals usually are placed in see also sections'. Where there's legit numbers of see also articles in a See Also section, have no objection to having it there. But when it's empty except for that box, it seems purposeless to keep it there for an empty section (which we do have 'empty section' tags for). Thoughts? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The one I reverted contained a link that was deleted as well. Most of the others I've edited would (eventually) have other items in them with later edits. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
BTW when I am doing a major "makeover" for an article, I'll frequently format first and then fill in information later. 582d Helicopter Group's an example, where almost the last thing done was adding links in the See also section. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Understand re the order of things you do during makeovers. As for 'See alsos,' it then runs into a disagreement about what are appropriate 'See alsos'. AFSOC, in my view, was not an appropriate see also for that article. MAC ran the special operations units at the time, if I understand correctly. Adding AFSOC is just WP:RECENTIST. Also wanted to query you on the 471 SOG. You moved to, yes, the most up to date name, but a name that never moved off a file drawer in DC. Surely WP:COMMONNAME would place it at the last active ARCW title, as we write for generalists, not specialists? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Lineagegeek. You have new messages at Talk:List of United States Army campaigns during World War II.
Message added 14:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mind to reassess? Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 14:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Deactivate→inactivate ?[edit]

I'm curious about your Deactivate→inactivate changes. Is this a military term? US military term? Seems a much less common word than deactivate to my ear, but maybe it's a regional thing? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

See the top of this talk page for much discussion. Inactivate is definitely the proper term when referring organizational actions to USAF units. It is elsewhere, but I confine my periodic visits to the term to USAF units. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey there Lineagegeek![edit]

Been a while! I haven't been editing nearly as much as I used to so I'm a big out of the loop. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at 352d Special Operations Wing. It's components section lists only one active but the factsheet lists quite a few more. Should I just go ahead and add them all? Thank ya sir! Cheers, —  dainomite   03:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I count three, the 7th and 67th Special Operations Squadrons and the 352d Special Operations Support Squadron. I think part of the problem in finding them is the way the components are listed, which makes them hard to find. Take a look at the way components are listed for the 582d Helicopter Group, which I did at User:Buckshot06's suggestion. Since there is little overlap in units, separate lists for the 2d Air Commando Group, 702d Strategic Missile Wing (trivial), and perhaps a combined 39th ARRW/342 SOG/352 SOW since that runs together in time (might take some playing with). On the other hand, without looking, I suspect a special tactics squadron is missing. I also suspect that all squadrons should have their assignments terminated in 2015. When the group was upgraded to a wing, it should have been assigned a maintenance group and a "new" special operations group. Speaking of special tactics squadrons, have you moved any of your drafts into mainspace? --Lineagegeek (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah the special tactics squadron was missing as well and I'm guessing that it's just going to roll up to the Wing now and not be part of a Group, since it's the only one in the Wing, but hey, I could be wrong. I like the way the components are broken down on 582d Helicopter Group, that's a nifty way to do it. Yep, I forgot that there should be a new Operations Group so yeah, the assignments section will end up being needing to be revamped to show that and the old squadrons as well, hrmm. I never ended up moving the special tactics squadrons to mainspace. I was always waiting on trying to find more information on them so they weren't relatively bare. Do you think I should just release them as-is?

Here's what I have at the moment:

At that point the only STS pages missing would be 320th Special Tactics Squadron and 22nd Special Tactics Squadron. —  dainomite   14:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I made some (mostly formatting and cosmetic) edits to the 26th page (because it was shortest). If you like them, I'd think that the articles would be low start level and can be moved to mainspace. One of the references has gone away. I don't know if one of the ones I added is an update for it and can be merged. If not, it might be archived on the Wayback Machine. --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure sounds good! Thank you very much for taking a gander sir, I appreciate it. If you want to add anything to the articles feel free to submit a DYK for the credit as well. I don't plan on submitting any DYKs for them. —  dainomite   02:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Squadrons of 4403 TFW while at England AFB, 1970-72[edit]

Am stumped by this. There's no confirmation of which squadrons listed at p.170 of Mueller (416, 427 SOS, and 431) were actually assigned to the wing (though clearly 68 TFS was). AFHistoryIndex has nothing on the 4403 TFW. Any ideas? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

68 TFS, 308 TFS (4403 Ftr Wg [sic]), 309th TFS 416th TFS, 431st TFS What search term did you use on the History Index? Try just "4403".

Thanks. I searched for the full "4403rd Tactical Fighter Wing". Now understand... Buckshot06 (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the inactive AFCON wings list. What's the source for all of that? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
For the reserve units, annual histories of Continental Air Command (a long time ago, in Air Force Reserve Historical Office files). A few should appear in Mueller's Air Force Bases, which should also have the depot units at Kelly, Hill, McClellan and Norton and Fletcher's overseas volume should have the wing at Clark. Willard, TSG Richard R. (1988) [1968]. Location of United States Military Units in the United Kingdom, 16 July 1948-31 December 1967. USAF Air Station, South Ruislip, United Kingdom: Historical Division, Office of Information, Third Air Force. LCCN 68061579.  has the 30th and 59th. McAuliffe, Jerome J. (2005). US Air Force in France 1950-1967. San Diego, California: Milspec Press ISBN 0-9770371-1-8 has information on the 73d. Endicott, Judy G., ed. (2001). The USAF in Korea, Campaigns, Units and Stations 1950-1953 (PDF). Maxwell AFB, AL: Air Force Historical Research Agency. ISBN 0-16-050901-7.  will have the wing at Pusan. There will be some additional information in the AF History Index. Include Tachikawa as a search term JAMA Air Base merged and separated with Tachikawa a couple of times (depending on whether FEAF or AMC had responsibility for depot activities there,)--Lineagegeek (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Lineagegeek. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests.
Message added 10:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 10:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

June 2015 Wikification drive.[edit]

Greetings! Just spreading a message to the members of WikiProject Wikify that the June drive has been started. Come on, sign up! :) "A wiki of beauty is a joy forever." Seriously. That's how long it'd take to read! (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

One Woman's War: Da[edit]

I noticed your recent reassessment of the article and the reasoning behind that. Thanks for your useful comments on the article. Will it be promoted if an apostrophe is added in the required place and the word 'martyrs' is replaced by another neutral word? Mhhossein (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I would think so. It would then be a B class article on its face according to the criteria. --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Is it OK now? Mhhossein (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

82d Training Wing[edit]

Would you please double-check my latest edits to the article? Have removed all mention of the 82d Flying Training Wing (Flexible Gunnery) of the Second World War. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

They look good, I removed the final vestiges of the WW II unit, but added a note to prevent it from reappearing. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Broken references[edit]

Hi. My bot fixed this following an edit of yours. I am just notifying to you to get sure that this is not a more general issue that needs fixing in your scripts or something like that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

No, it looks like I just bit cut off more than I could chew paste. --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Douglas HC-9A Nightingale[edit]

Is this some helicopter I'm not aware of? Sure it wasn't the VC-9 or something? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

From the modified mission prefixes. H before type is used for search and rescue and medical evacuation. Usually seen as a double H on helicopters, but was also used for the HC-131 HC-9 and HU-16. I believe the letter was derived from "Hospital." --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Sure, yeah I've seen HH on helicopters. OK, one learns a new thing every day.... Buckshot06 (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 22 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 7th Air Division, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Touch and go (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)