User talk:Nathanm mn

Official USAF unit names[edit]

Nathanm mn, If you need to have a reference to the correct way to name a unit, the USAF publishes a Handbook names AFH33-337, The Tounge and Quill. In it on page 326 it specifically explains how to write a number for a unit. They use 2d and 3d in place of 2nd and 3rd, just as you do for a 2d Lt, not a 2nd Lt. This AFH is not always referenced by unit prior to creating a fact sheet that is then posted on the public web. If you have questions please ask. --EagleWSO 21:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are really in the Air Force as your profile claims, you should know how their publication system works. At the top level of the publication hierarchy, Air Force Policy Directives (AFPD) give a broad overview of a functional area, which are detailed by Air Force Instructions (AFI), Air Force Handbooks (AFH), Air Force Manuals (AFM), and Air Force Pamphlets (AFPAM). However, not all publications are authoritative. For instance, while most (if not all) Air Force Instructions are authoritative, Air Force Handbooks and Manuals aren't authoritative unless they state COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY on the front page.

AFH 33-337, The Tongue and Quill, has never been an authoritative Air Force publication. It's merely a guide to help airmen write and communicate better. Besides, it does not specifically explain how to write a number for a unit on page 326. The point it's making is completely orthogonal to your point. It falls under the heading: Capitalize the proper names of colleges, universities, organizations, committees and agencies, but not the common nouns that refer to them. Then there are two notes under that heading, the first one being the one you refer to:

NOTE: When using the abbreviated form of a numbered organization (e.g., ABW versus Air Base Wing), do not use th, st, or d with the number. When writing it out in its entirety (Supply Squadron versus SUPS), add the th, d, or st to the number.

What they're trying to explain is just to use cardinal numbers (1, 2, 3, 4...) instead of ordinal numbers (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th...) when abbreviating unit names. Its choices for abbreviations are merely examples, not an imperative statement. I've noticed in the past that some of the examples (particularly memos) in The Tongue and Quill were completely wrong as to formatting, addressing, and other issues. The problem is that it's rarely updated. Many of the examples were just holdovers from previous Air Force policy.

There's another Air Force publication concerning written correspondence that is authoritative, AFMAN 33-326, Preparing Official Communications. Hopefully you noticed the reference to this publication on the title page of The Tongue and Quill. Unfortunately, however, it has no applicable examples.

Another Air Force publication (an authoritative one), AFPD 38-5, Unit Designations, does have applicable examples:

2nd Bomb Wing in A1.2.1 (page 3)
3rd Wing in A1.2.3.2 (page 4)

Now, I'm not going to claim these examples prove this is the one true method of abbreviating unit names. They're merely examples, like the ones in The Tongue and Quill, even though the actual stated purpose of this publication is about unit names and numbering.

On the AFHRA Research Division website, the only place it uses ordinal numbers is the pull-down menus, which were probably written by the website designer, not an Air Force historian. If you go to the lineage page of an individual unit, they avoid using any ordinal numbers and instead use only cardinal numbers. For example, see the lineage for the 2 Bomb Wing or the 3 Wing [sic].

To see what abbreviation is the official double plus good one for any particular unit, we'd need a copy of the unit's activation orders, but like the AHRA's lineage pages, they may not even list it.

I'm not convinced there even is an official method for abbreviating ordinal numbers in USAF unit names. My research thus far is inconclusive on that point. However, it's clear that your method is not any better than the more common abbreviations, which brings up the Wikipedia policy on naming conventions. It includes this paragraph:

Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

On that note, 2nd is clearly more common than 2d, as well as 3rd more than 3d. In addition, 2d is easily mistaken for 2D (2 dimensional), and 3d for 3D (3 dimensional). If nothing else can resolve the conflict, Wikipedia has a page about naming conflicts, which although it's mainly about using controversial names, may help in this situation.

Cross-posted at EagleWSO's talk page. Nathanm mn 17:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Acu ir closed.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Acu ir closed.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, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

And also:

File:Acu ir open.jpg

✗plicit 01:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Explicit: I added infoboxes to the images on Wikimedia Commons that identify the source as my own work. If I leave the ones here unedited and they're deleted, will the article using these images automatically revert to the ones on Wikimedia Commons? Thanks, Nathanm mn (talk)

Thanks for clarifying that you are the author of both images. The local versions have been deleted and now the Commons versions are visible. Cheers, ✗plicit 00:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of infoboxes to pages[edit]

Nathanm mn, I noticed you added infoboxes to two pages that I have edited: Dean Winslow, Julie Parsonnet.

I am interested in improving these articles until the infoboxes are no longer needed. I am relatively new to editing wikipedia. If you could name any specific changes that would rectify either article, that would be very much appreciated. Thanks - N545TT (talk) 03:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

95% of the information in those "articles" isn't encyclopedic. That kind of stuff can go in your personal user profile, but doesn't warrant inclusion in any Wikipedia article. Neither article is particularly notable, and many admins would probably nominate them for deletion. Nathanm mn (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Are you an active and if so can I request your input? Respectfully,Mcb133aco (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though not as active editing in recent years. Nathanm mn (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand if you change your mind. The topic is completely toxic. It is the Dakota War of 1862. I r eceived a request from the Minnesota History Project to review that article. I did and responded it was in need of a complete rewrite. The existing article lacks balance, neutrality, content, and basic format. I did a rewrite that I posted only to have it reverted immediately. It was not reverted for pov, ci, accuracy, or vandalism. The revert was for "too much at one time". From that I learned the article has two primary editors. It is my opinion that both have NPOV issues and one has taken ownership of the article. The upside to that revert is I continued to work on the balance of the rewrite in my new sandbox.[1] I have reached the point where I would like a outside input. It is large, however a review of other "war" articles shows that they all are way over the Wiki preferred standard. Thank you for your time and thoughts.Mcb133aco (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but that's par for the course on every article with any potential to be controversial. That's the primary reason why I haven't made many substantive edits for years. I still make minor edits for typos, dead links, etc., but it's not worth it to me to devote hours of work editing an article, only to have the edits reverted. Besides the bias and edit wars, this is far too complex and nuanced a topic for a concise encyclopedic article. Most of the heavy lifting should be done in smaller articles about individual events, different aspects of the conflict, biographies of the people involved, and so on. Then each section of this article could use a few sentences summarizing that part, but linking to the primary article. I don't see any easy way to make substantive changes without persuading the people who don't want it changed. Nathanm mn (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your timeMcb133aco (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)mcb133Mcb133aco (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]