User talk:KumiokoCleanStart/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, KumiokoCleanStart, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 

And don't forget, the edit summary is your friend. :) – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

TOC left

Please do not add TOCleft to article, there's got to be a good reason for that. In most articles the default toc looks best. Thanks. You can reply here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Your tocleft to Northern Mariana Islands made the article look rather badly. Again, please don't add TOCleft unless you have very good reasons for that and in very special cases. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for edit summary

Also, please use an edit summary, it helps others understand what you changed. Thank you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Military Operations of the Second Invasion of Iraq

I replied on my talk page, under your comment. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Notice

Hi,

Please don't add irrelevant or too broad templates or categories to articles. Example, the "wars in the persian gulf" template goes only into three articles: Iran-Iraq-War, Gulf War, Iraq War.

Cheers, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

those templates go only into specific articles, not all. The categories also: Operation Black Eagle cannot go into Category:Iraq but Category:Battles of Iraq, for example.

Page blanking

This is generally considered to be vandalism. Please disucss any significant changes to a page on its talk page before making tham. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 20:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk page banners

Hi, Kumioko!

Saw that you've been adding project banners to talk pages of articles and wanted to thank you for your work. And to mention that {{talkheader}} really should be only when needed, not on every talk page. In other words, if the page isn't very active, it doesn't need the talkheader. Thanks again, and happy editing! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Category links

On your user page you have:

[[Category:Wikipedia FAQ| ]]
[[Category:Articles that need to be wikified]]

which means that your user page is listed in those categories. Do you mean to link to the categories instead, like this:?

[[:Category:Wikipedia FAQ]]
[[:Category:Articles that need to be wikified]]

Rich257 12:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Iraq operations

There are currently 3 Different lists of Iraq Operations; Iraqi coalition counter-insurgency operations(which is also somewhat POV), a chonological list and an alphabetical list. I have added a lot of operations to the alphabetical listing and have been updating it faithfully but I haven't updated the counter insurgency or the Chonological listing much. Before I do I recommend that we consider other methods. I figured out how to add a column sort function and added it to the Alphabetical listing. I recommend the other 2 articles be merged into the alphabetical listing and then we can rename the alphabetical listing to something more appropriate like Iraq Military Operations since 2003 perhaps. I added a blurb on the discussion page and recommended the merge for the chronological list and the counter insurgency operations page. You seem to do a lot with the Iraq war articles what do you think? --Kumioko 15:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I merely fixed an ugly looking template. I do not know much about the Iraq war itself aside from the fact that we have a lot of articles on it. We can merge multiple templates yes. Which templates did you have in mind? I would prefer a chronological listing over an alphabetical one. -- Cat ^chi? 15:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The Way I did the alphabetical listing we can have both. Just click the column of what you want and it sorts it that way. 1 is Iraqi coalition counter-insurgency operations and the other is Coalition military operations of the Iraq War and I recommend they be merged into Iraq Military Operations 2003 to Current - Alphabetical--Kumioko 15:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked over all three articles and here is what I recomend. I say we write the names of all of the operations by year and date chronologicly. The article counter-insurgency operations of the iraq war is almost the same as the Iraq Military Operations 2003 to Current - Chronologicly. Merge those two. Merge all of the names of the operations in those two into one chronological list, and also add the names of all of the operations that are listed on the alphabetical list. As far as for the Alphabetical article I agree with FearGod, nobody will be interested in an alphabetical list, they will want to now the oeprations by date.--Top Gun

Yep, that seems like the better approach here. An alphabetical list is merely an index for people searching for a particular operation, and isn't really necessary online (due to a browser's the "find" function). If such a listing is really desired, it could be accomplished simply by having links in a template, but I'm not convinced that even that would be useful. Kirill 13:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: The battles and operations category

Indeed, there are many non-battle operations; they need to wind up in Category:Military operations of the 2003 Iraq conflict. This is something that would have to be done by hand anyways, so delaying—or not delaying—the main rename doesn't really affect things. Kirill 00:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's to be expected; the old category is being renamed, after all. The next step will be to go through the articles in the (renamed) category and move those that aren't battles up to the parent category. There's really no way to get around the temporary mis-categorization in cases like this. Kirill 00:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Battles and operations of the 2003 Iraq conflict

Hello Kumioko,

thank you for your polite message and for sharing your concerns with me. You are correct - my bot did indeed perform the category rename. If I may, I would like to take a minute to explain what happened. As you may have noticed, there was a discussion concerning the rename which the bot linked to in its edit summary. The main reason cited for the change were the guidelines at WP:MILHIST#CONFLICTS. An administrator then closed the debate and determined that there was consensus to carry out the change. At that point, I come in. I make sure that that there are no obvious mistakes (typos, etc.) and then setup my bot to do the dirty work.

My job, in other words, is the maintenance part. I don't actually decide if a rename is appropriate - that's the community's and, to some extent, the closing administrator's job. Hence, I would propose that you contact Kbdank71 (who closed that particular debate) directly. If he agrees that this should not have been done, I'd be happy to revert the changes. Also, if you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at my talk page. Cheers S ^up? 18:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy reply, I have already begun going through them and moving the non battle related ones up a level. I am also adding the Iraq portal, iraq war portal links and moving the Iraq war template to the bottom. I should be done tonight or tomorrow unless someone beats me to it. Sorry for the alarms, I'm still new to the game--Kumioko 18:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. :) If there's anything I can do to help, please let me know. Cheers S ^up? 19:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant

example: in the article terrorist attacks of the Iraq War the template bombings is relevant and the template coalition operations is irrelevant. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

the template Armed Iraqi Groups goes in articles such as Mahdi Army, Al-Qaeda in Iraq etc... in those articles listed in the template! --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

in 90% of the cases, yes. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

for example, the template Template:2007 Lebanon conflict doesn't need to go into the article Tripoli, Lebanon --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Please, before creating articles such as Operation Iraqi Home Protector read Wikipedia:Notability.

• It clearly fails criteria for being enough notable:
  • "Significant coverage" - covered only by the operation's perpetrators.
  • "Reliable" - as it is from only that source

Please consider this notification and let me hear your thoughts. Cheers, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Military operations

OK listen up, just wanted to let you know what I intend to do, before I do it, I am going to merge the Iraq war military operations articles the chronological one and the alphabetical one, now I will not do it before you reply, but I am going to do it. It has no purpos to have to seperate articles, you have already made the table so the list of operations can be sorted alphabetical and chronological. I wait for your reply.(Top Gun)

OK I justn have one question for you, have you already put the names of all of the operations that are listed in the alphabetical article into the chronological article. Just want to know because after the merge the alphabetical one will be deleated.(Top Gun)

Image tagging for Image:Operationmawtini.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Operationmawtini.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

IMO

IMO= In My Opinion --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the military history project

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, offline publication, article improvement contests, and other tasks.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Wandalstouring 11:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Image:General AmbroseHill.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Image:General AmbroseHill.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 15:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:General AmbroseHill.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:General AmbroseHill.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 15:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Operation Phantom Strike

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of Operation Phantom Strike, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.live-pr.com/en/u-s-military-launches-new-offensive-cracking-r18667.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 11:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that was not from a public domain source at all. Your source starts with a copyright notice to Associated Press; and therefore can not be used.

Also, be careful to note that not everything military is public domain. Only documents created by the United States federal government are, and not those created by subcontractors unless explicitly specified otherwise. — Coren ^(talk) 12:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent; that source is indeed usable. I see you've removed the tag, which is correct. You might also want to put a few words about this on the article's talk page to make sure that nobody else finds the copy of copy.  :-) Happy editing! — Coren ^(talk) 14:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked again

I'm sorry you've been having trouble, and apologize for any inconvenience caused by others who are disruptive from your network. Please email me when you have the chance and we can discuss some preventative options. Thank you, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheatsheet

I just deleted an article you created as a cheatsheet. Unfortuately you created the article in the main Wikipedia namespace and it isn't a valid article for inclusion there. Ben W Bell talk 21:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Named Military Operations

There's never been a real understanding that all named operations were per se notable; the rule of thumb has been that all battles are notable, but this tends not to carry over too well to the current military efforts in, say, Iraq, since every company patrol seems to get its own codename these days. In most cases, there simply isn't enough material on these minor day-to-day operations to warrant—or sustain—a separate article. My suggestion would be to simply merge the more minor operations into lists (by date, presumably, though other arrangements are possible); this will retain the material, but prevent it from being spread too thinly among a multitude of permanently stubby articles. Kirill 18:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Kirill 17:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Arlington Batson

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the page Matthew Arlington Batson on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — Super-Magician ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about reverting your edit. I guess I just got too caught up in reverting vandalism today that I didn't really check to see what you were doing. — Super-Magician ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:James Parks.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:James Parks.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 17:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

List

See how was the article created by Kirill Lokshin, main Mil. hist. coordinator on wikipedia: [1] A LIST. For your other concern, manual redirecting is not needed as an automatic bot is created to do that. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, OK, I support your idea of inserting details about the operation. That's still a list (with the tables). I never disputed that --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Casualty count

I use antiwar.com and www.mnf-iraq.com, they update daily from verified sources.Top Gun —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:44, August 25, 2007 (UTC).

MOS

On a page you recently put MOS what does that mean?--Kumioko 13:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry. Manual of Style, WP:MOS. The particular citation I should have used was WP:PUNC ("An entire quotation is not italicized solely because it is a quotation.") but I was running short on time. Hal Jespersen 19:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but it isn't really a quotation, its a citation.--Kumioko 01:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Reprinting text verbatim from another source--verbal statements, written passages, citations, inscriptions, etc.--is the intent of the word "quotation" here. There is no justification in Wikipedia or any formal writing for italicizing text passages like you propose. Hal Jespersen 15:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Concerning criteria for List of U.S. Marines

You added back Dan Daly to List of U.S. Marines. Please note that the criteria for inclusion is stated in the introduction: "The following is a list of people who served in the United States Marine Corps and have gained fame through previous or subsequent endeavors, infamy, or successes:" Marines who are of historical importance solely due to their actions while Marines are not included. If you disagree, this is a topic for discussion on the article's talk page. — ERcheck (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Medal of Honor recipients biographies

I see that you are making a quite a number of changes to Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipient biograpies. The biographies have been created using a standard formatting. I would appreciate a discussion of the changes that you are making. Perhaps a good place would be on the talk page of the USMC Portal. This would be a location that would be visible to a number of editors interested in USMC articles. — ERcheck (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• I am against any change in the established format of Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipient biograpies. The reason for this is that the established format is standard and within Wikipedia's policy which claaerly establishes that all citations and or quotes be linked to reliable verifiable sources and the changes are disrupting the links and so on . Please continue to contribute to the articles, but do not make any major changes to the format established unless you request a consensus. Semper Fi. Tony the Marine 18:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The changes include:

1) Taking the "hat note" that says "This page incorporates text in the public domain from the United States Marine Corps" out of the top of the "Reference" section and putting it in it's own notes section. 2) Taking the "Medal of Honor citation" section and changing it:

• Renaming it "Medal of Honor"
• Putting it into the format found on the Army citation pages, etc., not that on the USMC citation page.

Tony the Marine 19:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

I've made two comments on your talk page and would like to introduce myself. I've been a Wikipedia editor since October 2005. I started editing USMC biographies in December 2005. I believe my first USMC edit was to create a biography for Robert H. Barrow, the 27th Commandant of the Marine Corps. I realized that there were a number of CMC biographies that were missing. I've been writing USMC bios since then. (I believe that all USMC Medal of Honor recipients from the Haitian Campaign (1915) onward have entries.) I am the maintainer of the Marine Corps portal — which I've been working on almost since its creation in March 2006. I've been an adminstrator since July 31, 2006.

In my time editing, I've seen a vast expansion/improvement in Marine Corps related articles. It's alway great to see a new editor who has an interest in Marine Corps history.

I'm happy to answer any question you may have. — ERcheck (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Italicizing military citations

[Moved from SMcCandlish's talk page.]

For an example of one in italics see Jason Dunham. For an example of one not in italics see Gary Gordon. I think it looks better in italics and I think for the purpose of this the text within the citation should not be wikilinked as it is in Gary's article.----Kumioko 16:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Contrariwise, I think it looks ridiculous. Italicization is a form of emphasis, just like boldfacing. We do not emphasize entire paragraphs like that. It is also completely redundant, as the passage is already blockquoted, indicating that it is a separate, quoted passage. The Gordon article should also have the citation text blockquoted. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: I note above that others are having issues with your insistence on formatting military bios your own way. I suggest you seek consensus before proceeding further, perhaps at WT:MILHIST. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: The Manual of Style expressly forbids this italicization, actually: "An entire quotation is not italicized solely because it is a quotation." — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Kumioko! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Daniel 10:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

John Henry Balch

I can't seem to find the edit you're talking about. I know I added him to the list of recipients of the US Distinguished Service Cross and Silver Star medal, but as far as I recall, that was the only edit I made to his page. ItemCo16527 00:04, 9 September 2007 (ET)

Army MOH site

In the case of the Michael Thornton article, the Navy site already had the MOH citation, so an additional external link quoting the citation was not necessary.

Have you had any luck in locating the new location for the USMC MOH citations?

— ERcheck (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

USMC Medal of Honor citations site

The Who's Who site on tecom.usmc.mil has the biographies, but not the citations. Did I miss it? Before the move of the Who's Who to tecom, there was an index and pages of citations for all of the Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipients. It was at http://www.usmc.mil/moh.nsf/, which now redirects to the Congressional Medal of Honor Society website. Archive locations are at:

• http://web.petabox.bibalex.org/web/*/http://www.usmc.mil/moh.nsf/ and
• http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.usmc.mil/moh.nsf/

— ERcheck (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment

How you doing? I noticed that you have been removing the image of the MoH from the MoH articles. A discusson has been taking place in the talk page of the Talk:Medal_of_Honor#Pics_of_the_MOH_in_recipient.27s_articles in regard to the removal of said images. A consensus was not reached. As creator of many MoH articles, I agree with both User:Mufka and User:ERcheck. There are over a hundred MoH articles with the image within the infoboxes. A standard for formatting the infoboxes of the MoH articles has been set and since there isn't a policy against it, it should be followed or at least be up to the creator of the article to decide if he wishes to include said image. That said I would like to inform you that I would like said images in the articles that I created and therefore I will revert them back to thier original state. Mind you that if the community decides against them and it becomes policy, I will the first to follow said policy. I'm writing to you because I know that you are an outstanding contributor and someone with whom I can have a decent discussion. Tony the Marine 00:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• You know, instead of reverting (I mean your work is all in good faith), what I will do is post the image (MoH) in the citation section where it would be revelant. Tony the Marine 19:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Iraq War operations / categories

Hey there, Kumioko -- I see that you've jumped into editing enthusiastically, and very industriously, since coming aboard! And after a quick look at your talk page, I have the impression that you're also willing to learn from your mistakes -- which are all too easy to make when it comes to Categories.

I was checking out Category:Iraq (en route to Category:2003 Iraq conflict), and my jaw dropped when I saw that there was a sizeable list of articles about military operations of the Iraq War, right there in the top-level parent category for all articles & categories pertaining to Iraq. As you've no doubt surmised, that's not really a proper place for them. I immediately guessed that they had probably been added by one editor, and after checking 3 randomly picked articles, I identified the, er, culprit...

Ordinarily, I just jump in and take care of category mistakes when I come across them. (Case in point: I just took care of Category:Battles involving Iraq, moving it from Category:History of Iraq to Category:Military history of Iraq.) But there are so many articles here that, to be honest, I'd rather not spend my own time removing all those inapt categories. So, I thought I would ask you to report for KP and clean up the "mess" yourself, if you wouldn't mind.

By the way, I was really glad to see that note about "edit summaries" on your user page. I think you'd get a chuckle out of my remarks on the subject, half way down my user page. Regards, Cgingold 13:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Great! & thanks for the note. I got the last one (Operation Telic), it sure looks better now. Cgingold 23:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

quotes

I love the way you took it upon yourself to format Medal of Honor biographies without having a true consensus on it. --71.108.128.164 03:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong words for someone who has chosennot to login. At least I am trying.--Kumioko 12:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: COBot changes

I see that Rlevse responded on my talk page to your query. I've been away a bit lately, so I've missed some of the discussions on various topics. One place that you might check to see if there are military topics being discussed is the Military history WikiProject talk page. Often, notification about such discussions are posted there.

BTW, in case you hadn't found this, here are example infobox formatting for USMC installations, aviation squadrons, and Marines. Also, example template for Medal of Honor recipients is here. (Since I'd been the only person writing them, I'd left it in my sandbox for a long time.) Note that there is an archive of the USMC Medal of Honor citation site.

— ERcheck (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

USMC tasks

On the bottom of the right side of the Portal:United_States_Marine_Corps, there is a "to do" list. There are requested articles, articles in need of expansion, etc. — ERcheck (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice you created Unit Deployment Program. Great! It's nice to see a long requested article being created. BTW, I am working on an article on Rathvon M. Tompkins. — ERcheck (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment on wording of Medal of Honor award

You recently have been changing wording in the introduction of Medal of Honor recipients' articles — from "awarded" to "received". I find that "awarded" is a more appropriate word that received. See the Medal of Honor article. "Received" sounds like it is handed out; award implies that it is something special that requires review. The word that is often used inappropriately is "win", as if it is a game. — ERcheck (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I also note that you have been moving articles to the full name (first middle last). This is generally contrary to the WP:MOS, specifically the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), which indiates that the name to use is generally

"the name that is most generally recognisable"

For military personnel, I have been using the name in their official biographies/medal citation if there is not a generally known common name (such as "Chesty Puller"). It is fine to create redirects to the expected name, rather than moving the article to the full name. (I often create redirects to titles with [first last] and/or [first middle last] when I create a new article.) — ERcheck (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

John T. Kennedy

Am I right in thinking that John Thomas Kennedy and John T. Kennedy, both of which you created, are actually about the same person? --Paul A 04:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss rewording

Please discuss changing "awarded" to "received" - see my comments above. — ERcheck (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that "awarded" is the terminology used by Medal of Honor recipients. — ERcheck (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Template

I notice that your wording is different than the one that has been used on many USMC articles in the past:

This article incorporates text in the public domain from the United States Marine Corps.

— ERcheck (talk) 02:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Article title for Biogrpahies

I'm probably not the best person to ask, as my interest in biographies is very slight. The general rule would be to use whichever form is better known; but that's probably not an obvious matter for most topics. Personally, I tend to prefer full names rather than initials, simply because they're neater from a typographic standpoint.

(There's probably a WP:MOS page somewhere that covers this, but I'm not quite sure which one it might be.) Kirill 04:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Redirect pages

Kumioko, I do not put WikiProject tags on the redirect talk page. The project tags create categories, and the inclusion of project tags on the main article and its redirect would put duplicates in categories. See WP:Redirect#Categories_for_redirect_pages

For more information on redirects, see Wikipedia:Redirect.

— ERcheck (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Banners on Redirected pages

I wouldn't bother having banners there, since there's no way to assess redirects anyways, and they'll just clutter up the non-article categories. Kirill 01:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

GA sweep: Smedley Butler GA status on hold

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

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

I have left this message because, from the article history, you have been a significant contributor. If you no longer edit this article, please accept my apologies - it's got a fairly complicated editing history and I don't like to do this without trying to notify potentially interested editors ;)

All the best, EyeSerene^TALK 18:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, fast work! You have already vastly improved the article - not that there were many problems to begin with ;) The only remaining issue I can see for GA is that some sections are still unreferenced. I have taken the liberty of adding cite tags where needed; I don't normally do this as it can make an article look messy (and then I get complained at), but since you've asked... To be honest, I've possibly gone slightly beyond GA requirements with the citations, but you also asked about FA assessment and I believe the statements marked would get flagged up again there, should you take the article that far. The only other point I'd mention here is that, for FA, the "Legacy and honors" section may be better as prose rather than a list.

Once these cites are in place (or at the least, the end-of-paragraph and quotation ones) I'll be happy to pass the article GA reassessment. Thank you for your hard work! Regards, EyeSerene^TALK 11:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[addendum] Citing the same reference for more than one paragraph is fine, but each paragraph does need its own citation. I'd just extend the <ref name="...." /> usage to cover them. EyeSerene^TALK 12:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Re Prose comment: the general preference on Wikipedia is for lists of items (like the "Legacy and honors" section) to be rewritten as a full paragraph. I've rooted around and can't find the appropriate guideline/policy anywhere at the moment, but I do know it gets picked up by reviewers. For my part I'm now happy to pass the article GA reassessment as it stands; you've both done a great job on it. I can wait until you're finished with the copyediting though if you prefer.

Re possible FA, this Featured article on a similar subject might be worth looking at for stylistic pointers (in other articles of this type, the quoted medal citations are usually boxed out). The 'retirement' image also contains a deletion tag, which would need to be addressed (this doesn't affect GA though as the image is properly licensed; it just lacks formatted source information). EyeSerene^TALK 08:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Butlerlecture.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Butlerlecture.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 01:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Butlerretirement.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Butlerretirement.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 01:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Smedley Butler and uploading photo information

I noticed that you have completed most all of citations related to the {{fact}} tags in Smedley Butler. I tried to find one on the Cuba snipers bullet. I'm going to move that sentence to the talk page for discussion/holding until a citation can be found.

I see above that the recent photos that you have added have been tagged for lack of source information. I looked at your upload summary — seeing that you just need to be a little more specific in detailing the source of the photos you added. Below is a simple template you might want to use when you upload an image. Here are two examples where I've used it:

1. Image:GenNylandUSMC.jpg
2. Image:USS Jason Dunham announcement 070323-N-3642E-077.jpg

{{Information |Description = |Source = |Author = |Date = |Permission = }}

See Template {{information}}.

— ERcheck (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Marine Corps Brevet Medal

On 15 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marine Corps Brevet Medal, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 12:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Great job. I've reviewed its Talk:Marine Corps Brevet Medal assessment — assessed at B-class. — ERcheck (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Reminder - Edit summaries

Hello Kumioko. Just a quick reminder — Please don't forget to provide an edit summary whenever you save an edit. (You can set your preferences to remind you.) Thank you. — ERcheck (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

GA sweep: Smedley Butler pass

I've now passed Smedley Butler's GA reassessment. I believe the work you put in to ensure this article retained its GA status deserves recognition, so you may wish to copy the following template: {{User Good Article|Smedley Butler}} and paste it to somewhere suitable (such as your user page).

It will produce the following userbox

This user helped promote Smedley Butler to good article status.

and add you to the category "Good Article contributors".

Good job! EyeSerene^TALK 14:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

USMC article priorities

With the GA review sweep, I think it is most important to make sure that all USMC articles that are in the GA review are brought up to par before moving other articles forward for FA. Right now, Pedro del Valle is up for review. Once that is done....

Have you reviewed other FA reviews? It is a good place to start to see what scrutiny an article goes through on the way to FA.

— ERcheck (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, are you aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review? The next step past GA is A-class, before FA. The Project review is generally pretty helpful before going to a general community peer review. — ERcheck (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Re Smedley Butler PR

Peer Review is always worth undertaking... at the moment though it has a pretty large backlog so you may find yourself waiting a while to get useful feedback. The entire review process is currently itself under review, but as things stand (and as ERcheck has said above) A-class review would be the next stage in the hierarchy - there's no need to wait until the PR is over before requesting that.

Ideally, GA ensures an article complies with the basics of the Manual of Style, is written to a decent standard and is neutral, balanced and referenced. A-class is more of an 'expert' review (certainly for articles that come under the MilHist WikiProject anyway), in that the actual content is looked at to ensure factual accuracy, completeness etc. by reviewers that know the subject. Finally, FA scrutinises the article itself again, picking up stuff that is not necessarily checked by GA (eg the finer points of grammar and MoS compliance). An article (Battle of Barrosa) that I recently copyedited is going through FA at the moment (here); whilst it's an instructive process to follow, it's more work than I'd care to take on at the moment ;) Regards, EyeSerene^TALK 12:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Article standard appendices; References and External links

Hi there. I notice that you made two edits to William E. Barber, which I just expanded. I undid one of your edits and made a minor change to another.

See Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Standard_appendices_and_descriptions

You added a Find-A-Grave link — adding it to the "References" section. I moved it into the "External link" section. There is a lot of latitude in how the appendices are put together; however, there is also a general Wiki guideline to not change original author preferences (e.g. date formatting, etc.) . When I write an article, if a source is used directly in putting together the article, especially if it used as a citation, I put it in the reference section. Additional external links, if not directly cited or used to create the article, I put in the "External links section. "... external links are generally limited to the "External links" section. This section follows the same formatting rules as the "References" section ....External links used as references should accordingly be listed in the "References" section." I returned the External link section.

— ERcheck (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Notes section: Use when using <ref name="name1"> with {{reflist}} or <references/>. For a number of reasons, using a "Notes" section for citations is preferable — seems to be preferred formatting for FAs; easier finding of references with a separate "References" section/neater. — ERcheck (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

External links: Two meanings here — the appendix section and linking to webpages. Note, that for all webpage links, it is a best practice when you first add an external link to include the retrieve date. This allows a reader/editor to retrieve the referenced version from archives when a page is changed/moved/deleted. — ERcheck (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Further reading: As it implies, further reading on the topic, when not used in building the article. Might be books, articles, etc. — ERcheck (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Cornelius J. Leahy

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Cornelius J. Leahy, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.homeofheroes.com/moh/citations_1900_wars/pi_leahy.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 23:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

USMC public domain tag

Hi. I note that you have added the USMC public domain template tag to a few articles recently, for example James Dougherty (Medal of Honor). This "disclaimer" is used to indicate that portions of the text might be copied from USMC sources — listed in the references; which is acceptable since the material is in the public domain. However, in the case of his article, there is no USMC source, so the tag is not appropriate. In the case that Who's Who in Marine Corps History is used a reference, the creator who used the reference will know if the tag is appropriate. — ERcheck (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Templates

On 01:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC), Kumioko wrote:

“ Sorry to be a bother but I had a couple of recommendations that I wanted to run by you. I saw that you made a change to the format of the findagrave template and I wanted to suggest another. I recommend that we add the Retrieved on and date thing to the end of the template. In regards to another template I wanted to suggest another change. I think we should modify the Age template to wikilink the from date like it does for the to date. Let me know what you think. I know that I should suggest these on the discussion pages for the templates but I wanted to run them by you first since you have been doing this for a while. ”

I'm not a template expert; I dont' want to break a template by trying to add arguments.

Since {{findagrave}} is a commonly used template, any changes you make will impact a lot of pages and a lot of editors. It is best if you would begin a discussion on the talk page — and wait a good amount of time for discussion. Even then, most editors who use the template don't watch it. You might want to go to the talk page of the editor who created it; and even to the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography.

I do agree that it is a good idea that all external links include a retrieved date. (Something that I learned about over time as I edited.)

BTW, in case you haven't seen this — what to do with deadlinks.

— ERcheck (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

On wikilinking dates

I've noticed that you are linking years in the "serviceyears" entry in the infoboxes (such as your recent edit to Robert C. Burke), When you link a single year (that is not part of a full month-day-year date), it links to the Wikipedia article on that year, such as 2007. From the Manual of Style (MOS): "Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic. Piped links to pages that are more focused on a topic are possible (1997), but cannot be used in full dates, where they break the date-linking function." (Italics are mine.)

Linking of standalone years can fall into "overlinking". See

• On years as low value links
• Dates & numbers

Also, if you look at the Military person infobox example, note that the service years are not linked.

This is a long explanation of why I am reverting those changes.

— ERcheck (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you point me to an example of the adding of images? Or to the particular editor? — ERcheck (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I know that there has been a recent discussion about adding flags and the like to infoboxes. I'll look for it. — ERcheck (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message on the editor's talk page. — ERcheck (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

More references sought

Here's another two (related):

In the Henry Talmage Elrod article, it reference Elrod Road leading to OCS. In the OCS article it has an entire section on honoring Medal of Honor recipients. I can find a roundabout reference to Elrod — the address of OCS, but it would be nice to find documentation of specific honors for Medal of Honor recipients.

— ERcheck (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

USS Abraham Lincoln

Thanks for the information, though I would add that the nicknames that I had eliminated as unsourced seem to be added by anonymous IP user who (if I recall correctly) had been warned concerning possible vandalism to the article. However, the nicknames can be reinstated if there is indeed a solid source to point to. Pentawing^Talk 22:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

On archived links

I noticed that you did an update to Donald J. Ruhl for the citation. Please note that for {{cite web}}, there are two entries appropriate for when you use the wayback machine:

|archiveurl=

|archivedate=

The wayback archive url goes with the "archiveurl" and the date that wayback archived it goes in the "archivedate". The publisher remains the original publisher of the material, so in the case of the citation, the work is still Marines Awarded the Medal of Honor, and the publisher is still "History Division, United States Marine Corps".

And on Find-A-Grave, it is my practice/preference that if the Find-A-Grave is not used in creating the article, adding new information, or as a citation, then it belongs in the "External link" section, not in the "Reference" section.

Hope this helps.

— ERcheck (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Marine Barnstar

Keep up the good work Marine! Semper Fi. Tony the Marine 04:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This Marine Tireless Contributor Barnstar is presented to Kumioko for his continous work on USMC related articles. Presented by Tony the Marine 04:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Birthday greetings

Happy 232nd Birthday to the United States Marine Corps! See these "232 reasons to love your Corps". Semper Fi! — ERcheck (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear friend...

..I want answers. Please check when I "vandalised" an Iraq War-related article on my user contributions page. I'm deeply disturbed by your message and I find it unfair to find you accusing me of constant vandalism as I haven't touched that article since 22 August 2007. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 00:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

well, I would appreciate your answer like: "sorry, but the message was late for 4 months.." ..or something. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Medal of Honor recipients: World War II: Iwo Jima

Thanks for tackling that table. List of Medal of Honor recipients: World War II has the same thing going on, if you want to jump on that before I can hit it this weekend.
Must have been tedious!!! bahamut0013♠♣ 16:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I, bahamut0013, award you this Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal for your volunteering to do dilligent work for many hours on fixing the tables in List of Medal of Honor recipients: World War II and List of Medal of Honor recipients: World War II: Iwo Jima.

}}