This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
line break edits
Why are you changing <br /> to <br/>?
Did you realise that the button produces <br />?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
nuisance edits
You are changing non-American-format dates into American-format dates. (Example.) Please stop doing so. You are simply creating work for other people, and risking people using rollback or reverting the whole edit, because all your edits seem to be cosmetic rather than functional, and are adding no real value. --Pdfpdf (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Adding the birth cat is not a "nuisance edit" as you put it and if you choose to revert it thats on you. If you don't like the way that the dates display in the format you can change the way it dislays.--Kumioko (talk) 04:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
a) Don't be rude and arrogant. I have been polite and explained the problem. What is there is in the format that the editors who work on the page want it to be in. You changing it is, indeed, a nuisance. Please mind your manners and assume good faith. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
b) What do you mean "Adding the birth cat"? Do you mean that by using the "birth date" template you were adding the birth cat? The birth cat was already on that page - it didn't need to be added. It certainly didn't need to be added in a way that changed the format of the date.
c) "If you don't like the way that the dates display in the format you can change the way it dislays" - I, and my colleagues, were perfectly happy with the way it was displaying before you came along and performed your adds-no-value edit.
Thank you for fixing your edit. But why did you make it in the first place? Pdfpdf (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Using this template rather than simply inserting the date into articles allows for the inclusion of hidden metadata about the date. This metadata can be used by web browsers and other software tools to extract the details, and display them using some other website or mapping tool, index or search them. --Kumioko (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know that. Thank you for explaining it. --Pdfpdf (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Your welcome and have a good night.--Kumioko (talk) 05:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
And to you, too.
But, at your convenience, I will be interested to read your answers to my questions above (User talk:Kumioko#line break edits) and below. --Pdfpdf (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I apologize if I appeared to be arrogant and I misspoke when I said birth cat, I meant birth date, as in the birth date template. I also understand that I am not a routine editor of this but I don't apologize for making the edit and I am a little surprised at your sense of "ownership" of the article. --Kumioko (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how to respond to you; you have not addressed any of the issues I have raised. Never-the-less, I will try.
First, I have no "ownership" of the article, so I'm not sure what point you are making.
Second, I have already thanked you for fixing your edit. And thank you for apologising. However, "I don't apologize for making the edit" still sounds rude and arrogant, and somewhat agressive and confrontative, so I'm not sure what point you are making there, either.
Perhaps if you respond to the issues I raised, and explain what points you are trying to make, I can make a more useful response? --Pdfpdf (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Please: I've reverted these several times, giving the pertinent policy, with link, in the edit summary, but you continue to make your well-meaning edits that go against WikiProject Comics style. The consensus of the project is that in parenthetical comic-book cover dates, which are used voluminously throughout comics articles, the long months, in those instances only, are abbreviated. Please see WPC MOS for cover-dates in captions: Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines#Uniform_cover_artwork_crediting_convention. Thanks, -- Tenebrae (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Jules Garesche Ord
Thanks for the look over of Jules Garesche Ord. I am trying to figure out why it is not a B rating. Any ideas? Jrcrin001 (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the input! Jrcrin001 (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Leavitt Hunt
Thanks for the clean-up of the Leavitt Hunt piece. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 08:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
portals
Hi. I see you are sweeping through with miscellaneous edits again. I do not understand your motivation for placing the portal templates into a table with a border and making them more prominent in the generally inconsequential See also sections. I usually ignored these boxes because they were sitting over at the right and not taking up additional space. (This was one of the reasons I have been not deleting all of the gratuitous U.S. Army portal templates I find in Civil War general officer articles. That portal is strongly oriented toward the modern U.S. Army and does not even mention the Civil War, other than in a list of other portals.) I find your proposed organization to be visually clumsy and space wasting. I would appreciate if you would stop doing such edits in the Civil War space. As I perform routine maintenance on articles that you have already changed, I will be reverting these to the previous style. Thank you for your cooperation. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I understand that you do not agree with some of the edits that I am making and that you think that they are visually unappealing but I believe that having them in this fashion is better than leaving huge areas of white space or having the portals spilling into other sections. I also understand that you do a lot of good work on the ACW pages but I personally find your sense of ownership as irritating as you find my inconsequential edits. They are not Hlj's American Civil War encyclopedia articles. If you don't like the portals in the see also section then I suggest you recommend a change to the MOS. It is what states they should be there. As for my inconsequential edits, over the past couple of years I have built up the Medal of Honor recipient articles adding structure, portals, categories, persondata templates, infoboxes, content, etc. All in small increments because if you do the small changes the large ones will take care of themselves. I have even adding over a hundred articles and have gotten many to Good or Featured articles status as well as getting dozens more to a state were over the next few months I will be building them up so that by the summer time all of the MOH recipients will have a page, most or all lists will be featured and at least a handful from each conflict will be good or better. Now you obviously enjoy what you do and so do I so lets quite this stupid bickering and work together to build up these articles. --Kumioko (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, you have somehow chosen to ignore the substance of my points. I do not object to having portals in the See also sections because that is what the MOS allows. I object to two things specifically: expanding (doubling) the size of the See also section by putting the portals on top of the links, moving them from the right side where they shared the space of the page; and the visually unattractive artifact of putting a bordered table around two boxed graphics. The portal boxes were specifically designed to be in the right margin of the page and I don't see any justification for wrangling them over to the left by putting them into a table. My minor objection is the U.S. Army portal, which, when you click on it, brings up no obvious information about the American Civil War, so adds little value to any reader of an ACW article. But I will let that one pass if the portal boxes get out of the table and go back on the right. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Kumioko, can you please tell us if there are more errors like that and if you fixed them? Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Create a folder for logs in AWB
Logging to file -> In "folder" press "select" and choose your desired location to store the log file. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Damiens
Kumioko - Damiens block is being discussed here: [2]. I would appreciate your commends in regard to the deplorable actions of Damiens against military related articles. Antonio Martin (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kumioko (if I haven't said it already, great to see you back); can you revisit this FLC to see if your concerns resolved when you get the time? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Re:Reviews
I'll have a look later, but at the moment I am just about set to depart for the day. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I've had a look at the articles, and I supported the MoH list one. The other two are GACs, and they are technically a two person waltz: the one nominating and the one reviewing do the dancing. I do not have any real ability to participate in a GAC, though I would suggest adding a little to prose of each article to fatten them up a little, they do seem a little thin on history. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
MOH article
I'm out of the article for now, so please feel free to go ahead and put your changes in. I honestly don't see how the Home of Heroes site could be reliable - from the "About Us" page it says its a self-published website by a non-expert. I would like to take this to FL at some point, and so all of the references should be as reliable as possible. Drop me a note when you're done and I'll do some more work on it! Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Somewhat pointless edit
One for the scrapbook I think. [3]. I don't know how you've got your AWB configured, but if it is possible to avoid having edits as insignificant, would you consider doing that? (I'm not even sure it's better now than it was before, is there consensus?) - Jarry1250[Humorous? Discuss.] 12:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I passed this for GA today, after going through and fixing punctuation and sundry problems. Enough was enough, waiting on it. You'll need to do a few things with the cite templates. First, some of the punctuation is hinky again (double periods, double commas, periods and commas), mostly in the general section. In the inlines, you've got op cit which is not recommended. (nor is ibid). I can't figure out what they are referring to so that should be cleaned up. Also, I'd recommend against citations of any kind in the lead, simply because if you don't cover it in the article body, it shouldn't be in the lead, and you've taken care of it in the body. So as far as I'm concerned those can go. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, KumiokoCleanStart. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page. Message added 00:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
After a quick check with the other reviewers to ensure that there were no outstanding concerns preventing promotion, I've closed the A-Class review for Smedley Butler as successful. Congratulations on achieving the very demanding standard that milhist looks for in its A-Class articles - well done :) EyeSerenetalk 18:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Helmut Lent review
Thanks for your (weak) support. I do acknowledge and concur in your opinion that the layout you referred to looks much nicer. The text in the awards section is the actual (my translation) of the award documentation of Helmut Lent. Unfortunately the German WW2 awards do not all align as nicely. However if you have an idea, I more than welcome would appreciate your input. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Self-assessments
Hi Kumioko. I have recently noticed that you have been assessing several of the articles you have been working on yourself. Please do not do this as it is a conflict of interest and does not give an impartial review of the criteria required for an article up to B-Class. If you wish to have an article assessed, please list it here and an editor will come along and assess the article against the B-Class criteria. I must tell you, also, that I am tempted to go through the list of articles you have entered into the monthly Military history Contest to ensure your assessments are vaild, as I believe some of the articles you have self-assessed as B-Class should actually be rated Start-Class. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
As I stated above, it is more a conflict of interest issue, which is not very good given that you are participating in a contest if you understand what I mean. I have had a little look through some of the articles you entered in the contest and, as I said, I think some of them should really be a Start. The main issue is that I do not believe some of them have enough content or coverage on the subject to receive a rating of B. I can understaing you re-assessing articles in your area of interest, but just be careful and only re-assess the ones you are not the main, or one of the main, contributors, if you are it may be best to list the article at WP:MHAR. I have previously noticed your interest in the Medal of Honor bios and admire what you are doing; I'm attempting the same thing for all of the Australian Victoria Cross recipients and have a page listing their current ratings and status as well. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
FAC
Hi, I just wanted to leave this note to say I'm sorry I opposed this. I don't like opposing. But I get the sense from reading it that the writers aren't 100 percent on top of the subject. I could be completely wrong, but that's the impression the writing gives—a bit hesitant, a bit disjointed, with important issues not comprehensively dealt with, and sources hard to find. I think if you put just a couple more weeks into it, including some more reading of the sources perhaps, you'd end up with a much better article.
As for References/Notes, the standard thing is to use a short ref in the Notes section (Smith, p. 1), which you've largely done (and it's quite normal to add comments and more info in footnotes too), then to add your complete citations to the References section. Some people include full citations in the Notes section too i.e. they use full citations as inline citations, but it's becoming less common to do that. Whatever citation style you choose, at FAC a complete alphabetical list of citations is expected in a References section, so that readers can see at a glance which sources you used. I'm wondering how you got through three peer reviews without someone pointing that out to you.
Anyway, as I said, I'm sorry to oppose, because I don't want to be discouraging. It really doesn't need that much extra work, just a bit more depth and some polishing. Please give me a shout if you want me to look at it again. SlimVirginTALKcontribs 07:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The thing about your References section is that it contains only four references. But you've used more than four in the text. You've used the NYT a couple of times, The Philadelphia Record, several websites, Butler's letters (which you've placed in the FR section for some reason), a Jules Archer book, and so on. None are listed in the References section. All the sources you used must be listed in that section. SlimVirginTALKcontribs 15:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Who told you to break the references apart? If you read the FA criteria, it says, "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section that lists these sources, complemented by inline citations where appropriate ..." I don't know why you're fighting this so much; in the time you've been arguing against it, you could have had it done. :)
I think you should consider withdrawing the nom, and spending another couple of weeks doing some more research, making sure the article is comprehensive and neutral, and reading up on how to cite the sources. There are a number of styles you can use, but whichever one you choose, you must have a References section listing all the citations (though you don't have to call it References; some people called it Bibliography and I've also seen it called Sources). When you're not writing an FA, you can get away with just listing the full inline citations in a Notes section (or whatever you want to call it), but for FA, you need that separate section. SlimVirginTALKcontribs 19:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any block of white space. SlimVirginTALKcontribs 19:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I tried it with IE, saw what you meant, and I think I've fixed it. SlimVirginTALKcontribs 19:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I should have realized, because of course it's a file, not an article. And because it looked fine in Firefox, I didn't know there was a problem. Sorry for not seeing it sooner. SlimVirginTALKcontribs 20:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
WikiCup 2010 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to Sasata (submissions), our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to Fetchcomms (submissions)- his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.
Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Carl Emil Petersen, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.mastermason.com/acacia/Famous/bios/P/carl_emil_petersen.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. See our copyright policy for further details.
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 (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Nit picky is good, especially on the dead links. Your suggestions are good. There is allot I have moved from the article to other articles. I could quote from personal memoirs, if there is space. There is some difficulty in summing up his fast history with the Mexican American War, the Civil War, his Presidency, oh yeah, his world tour and to put it all in one article with historical accuracy and reliable sources. I appreciate your suggestions. {Cmguy777 (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)}
I really appreciate your recommendations. I have complied with many already. If you like, please feel free to look at the article again. {Cmguy777 (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)}
Is the USG article GA status? Changes have been made to match the Civil War battles with other articles. I have attempted to edit or reduce the Civil War and Presidential segments to a minimum. Thanks. {Cmguy777 (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)}
I reorganized the photos. What is a DAB link? {Cmguy777 (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)}
I have looked at the sources. Most if not all have been cleaned up. I got rid of all the civilwar.com sources. There may be a few .orgs. Can you list the DAB sources? I have gone through article sources. I have used book sources from Catton, Simpson, and McFeely. Those are all good sources for the Civil War. I also added Alts to the pictures. I just need to know what sources you consider DAB. Another contributor, Hlj, and myself have gone througth the civil war section. I have looked through the other articles to make sure they match up. The Vicksburg section in the article is really good. All I need to know is what are the DAB sources. If there are any more changes for GA status, please let me know. Thanks. (Cmguy777 (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC))
The links have been corrected and are working. What other things can be done to improve the article? Is the article GA status? {Cmguy777 (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)}
Did you decide if USG is a GA article? What else can be done? {Cmguy777 (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)}
I am not sure who can review the article. I can't because I have contributed. {Cmguy777 (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)}
I have looked at the cites. What does cite expansion mean? I am not sure what you mean by combined. Also, the article has not been reviewed yet. Is there anyone I can suggest to review. I asked Hlj but he has not responded. {Cmguy777 (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)}
Couple more minor things with Grant
I went and looked and some of the references are still a bit messy. Sometimes you spell out the entire ref such as in ref 1, sometimes they are abbreviated like 4 and they should be consistent. There are also still some other minor issues as shown below. I don't know that these would stand in theh way of the article getting to GA, but as long as you have the time I thought I would mention them. If it makes a difference I am about to undetake a similar struggle with the Douglas MacArthur article. I would ask you to review it as well but its in such a state at the moment theres not much point.
Ref 9. Need expansion0
Ref 18 & 19 are identical and should be combined
Ref 41, 42 & 46 are identical and should be combined
Ref 45, 48 & 49 are identical and should be combined
Ref 17, 51 & 76 are identical and should be combined
Ref 91, 97, 111, 116 & 117 needs to be expanded
Ref 118 & 119 are the same and should be combined--Kumioko (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, can you revisit this FLC? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, KumiokoCleanStart. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page. Message added 18:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thank you for your note and your reassessment of the article, Kumioko. Feel welcome to make recommendations on the article's discussion page, and I will see what I can do. You might also be interested to look at the article on William M. Callaghan, which I also rewrote, and was what led me to the Daniel J. Callaghan article originally. Janggeom (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC) – Originally posted on my talk page a few days ago; reposting here in case it was missed. Janggeom (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Happy Kumioko's Day!
User:Kumioko has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Kumioko's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Kumioko!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, why don't you archive a bunch of this talk page ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Clarence Edward Mathias, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/cemathia.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. See our copyright policy for further details.
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 (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, KumiokoCleanStart ... I noticed your recent edits to John R. Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and was wondering if you thought that it was good enough to nominate for Featured Article, or if it still needs some work ... I see that you have often returned to it, as have I, but my recent contributions have mostly been vandal patrol and WP:LINKSPAM reversions. <Sigh!>
Hi Kumioko. Truthfully, I have the same stance on this presentation; same rubbish with MOS:IMAGE and list/image cruft issues, just formatted slightly different. Another major issue of this is that most, if not all, of those included are uncited thus creating an WP:OR issue. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
"Fixing" redirects
I'm curious why you made this edit? It is suggested here and here that edits like this aren't made.--Rockfang (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The thing is, these bots, most likely fix the redirects while doing other changes to the page at the same time. The template appeared to be working fine before your edit.--Rockfang (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Re:Hispanic and Puerto rican Medal of Honor recipient lists
Hello Kumioko, it is always good to hear from a friend a patriot. Actually, I'm not making any more written contributions, just trying to tie up some loose ends. I completely understand your idea, the only thing is that I'm afraid and almost certain that somewhere along the line someone (and I'm not going to mention the particular user's name whom I have in mind) will come along and delete the PR recipient section that you suggest as redundant. It would be a shame if that happened because I also have articles on the PR recipients of the Navy Cross and DSC. I mean I have seen a case where someone wanted the MoH, NC and DSC citations removed from the articles, and I'm sure will be the destiny of a PR MoH section in the Hispanic recipient list. I don't know.
Another thing, have you noticed here: [4], that after every image someone placed this comment: "alt=A head and shoulders portrait of a young, clean shaven man with dark hair in a military uniform, wearing a hat."? I wonder what's up with that? It seems to me to be a nonsense comment that should be deleted altogether. Don't you think? Tony the Marine (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Alt = is for an alternate text description of the image. This is for people who cannot see or cannot see well. There is currently some debate about using the individuals name as well but thats another story. Did you give any though to merging the 2 lists yet?--Kumioko (talk) 05:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not too sure about merging the two lists as I explained above. I have my doubts. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I had Ejosse1 (talk) review them for me. See also the comments at User talk:Ejosse1#10th Cavalry Regiment (United States). I will have to devote some time to project outside of Wikipedia, but I would appreciate if you too could look over the 10th Cav Reg article. I note some minor problems on the discussion page. Any thing you can do? I do value your input and comments.
As a last thought, the article Louis H. Carpenter has matured a bit since failing its A Class review. I think it is in better shape now than before. While I do not have time now, do you think March may be a good time to ask for another review?
Let me know. Jrcrin001 (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Jrcrin001 (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Medal of Honor lists
Well, the best way to find out whether or not they meet the criteria is to submit them. :-) Okay, if you are planning on taking these to A-Class, I would advise that you only submit one at a time as a mass submission could create a logistical nightmare and be a problem for both reviewers and difficult for yourself. Regarding the three lists I have a few comments:
1. List of Medal of Honor recipients – it does not matter that it contains fork lists as this is a master list and without the forks would be horrible to maintain, review, read, etc. However, I do think the lead needs a re-write and fix up, introducing what the decoration is, when it was established and by whom, which battles or wars it has been awarded in and the total number to date. I know some of these are already addressed, but it is judt a bit of a guide of what to include. Also, this should make the separate sub-section for the medal redundant so it can be removed. In the war subsections, it might be an idea to mention some particularly notable awardees, such as double recipients. As a bit of a guide, it might be an idea to have a look at List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign and related articles in that series that have been compiled by User:Woody.
2. List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Spanish–American War – Again, I would advise that the information in the "Medal of Honor" sub-section be intergrated into the lead. It could also do with a few extra citations in the lead, and a bit of a tweak. It would be nice if a few of the redlinks were filled out, bit I wouldn't overly worry about it.
3. List of Medal of Honor recipients during peacetime – Again, I would advise that the information in the "Medal of Honor" sub-section be intergrated into the lead, and I do agree that it could do with an expansion. Also, with the latter two lists, a "See also" section with a link to the master list is basically redundant given that the Medal of Honor navigation box in the top right corner also has a link.
I hope these comments were helpful. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
John Kennedy (Medal of Honor recipient)
The contents of the following box is a corrupted record of the discussion that occurred in this section and which i have struck thru.
1. Your relocation of the bio from that title to John Kennedy (Medal of Honor recipient) is a cut-and-paste move and thereby utterly unacceptable regardless of any issue about what the correct title should be; i am repairing that according to WP standards, while retaining the content changes you made. (I urge you to study the project-namespace (WP) page i linked to; in an editor as active as you, ignorance of the issues involved is a serious shortcoming.) --Jerzy•t 10:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
First I should point out that I do not normally move pages unless I feel that they misrepresent the subject of the article and in this case it does. More to the point I believe that the new name I gave it, whether I moved the data correctly or not, was more correct than just civil war. To help illustrate my point which do you think would make more sense, Bill Clinton (American) or Bill Clinton (American President)?
The portion of that response that is relevant to what you placed it below is
whether I moved the data correctly or not
(followed immediately by another change of subject). That seems to indicate that you don't care "whether [you] moved the data correctly or not", and intend to avoid either defending your approach or admitting your ignorance, by stonewalling. IMO that calls for heightened oversight toward your editing, and avoiding distraction by the (less important) remaining aspects of this matter. --Jerzy•t 01:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
If you have determined that I do not care or that I am stonewalling you have grossly misread my statement. I was trying to be nice about saying that I think that YOU were in error in YOUR determination that Civil War was more meaningful than Medal of Honor recipient. If you feel like following me around and reviewing my edits feel free but if that is the case then you clearly don't have enough to do and I do enough edits to keep you very very busy. I recommend focusing your efforts on something more meaningful like say doing some editing or creating some articles. If you are in need of some to work on here is a link to some medal of Honor recipient articles that need to be created and here are some, and some more that you could work on. I have even taken the time to add the articles assessment so you can pick and choose the level of effort you want to do. By the way, the more time I spend with your wikidrama the less time I spend doing real improvements to the projec. Your condescending tone and leaping to conclusions is ridiculous. --Kumioko (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Your edit summary "move to more notable title" at least invites the interpretation that you believe JK's status as a Medal of Honor recipient constitutes a more notable aspect of his bio than his association with the Civil War -- a reasonable PoV. I imagine that NC may say something that suggests that a difference of that sort can be relevant for title selection, but even if so, NCDAB applies in this case, bcz we are not talking about the "core" title of the article, but the dab'g suffix appended to that core; i would summarize its principles by saying that disambiguation, intuitiveness, and brevity, pretty much in that order, precede and outweigh any such criterion as "expression of notability" or however you would describe it. "Civil War" succeeds in addressing those three critical factors sufficiently to rule out "Medal of Honor recipient". --Jerzy•t 10:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
For this point I would like to point out that there are literally dozens of Medal of Honor recipient articles that use the Medal of Honor recipient extension, and that is not an invitation for you to seek them out and "cleanse" them. Your argument that it is unnecessary only illustrates that, although you may know wikirules, you lack knowledge in the subject and I would argue that someone who was looking for it, would look for it as a Medal of Honor recipient rather than Civil War. Which Civil War by the way? Civil War inferrs that everyone would "know" that it refers to the American Civil War, which they do not. The Medal of Honor is US specific and would only apply to someone from the US, regardless of the conflict they participated in.
3. The "Medal of Honor recipient" suffix is an example of a "generic class" suffix, but NCDab makes clear that these appositives should not regarded as the gold standard; IMO a careful editor will automatically prefer a short "subject or context" suffix like "Civil War" (or for that matter the three- (well, 2.5-) word "Medal of Honor") over the long one. I also prefer "Civil War" for its effect of explicitly ruling out John Thomas Kennedy -- as "Medal of Honor recipient" fails to do. --Jerzy•t 10:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
All I am going to say here at the risk of sounding a bit repetetive is, Civil War, is much much more generic that Medal of Honor recipient. Roughly 3500 people in the history of the Medal have recieved the Medal of Honor, the civil war had more than that die in an individual conflict.
4. Finally, and somewhat technically, and while i do not feel slighted by your summary "create article", it has the effect of concealing the previous title, and thus misrepresents the development in the preceding edits including your own. Failure to adhere to the legal obligations (however technical) to contributors that the GFDL is built around may undercut the project's legal foundations.
I see part of your point on this one. Although from a legal aspect the edits are still there and most of the content is from a government source so it nullifies this argument somewhat.
On the contrary: it's clear you don't see the point, which has nothing to do with copy-vio. --Jerzy•t 01:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
One additional point I would like to illustrate to you however is that although you might be correct in some of your arguments (in your POV at least) your tone above gives a negative one and comes off as being a bit insulting, hinting at times that I am careless as an editor and ignorant of the thousands of rules that WP has in place. Just because your an admin doesn't give you the right to be insulting, don't forget we editors who have not ascended to the higher plains of existence into admindom are here for enjoyment and are volunteers so comments like this discourage new editors. This is one of the reasons that WP has seen less and less new editors sticking around. Just FYI, I too attempted to become an admin and expand my role in WP beyond article space edits and my nomination was crushed by what I perceive to be largely petty reasons (such as not supporting self nominations). That has discouraged me from being one and I am quite content living without the Wiki-ego and the Wiki-drama that tends to come with being an admin. But that doesn't mean I need to put up with it either. --Kumioko (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll respond in more detail, but for the moment, thanks for reviving the title John Kennedy (Medal of Honor recipient), which was a rdlk when i noticed it but should exist indefinitely to get users to our guy's bio from old off-WP copies of it, even at times when all internal Rdrs to him have been bypassed. When i did the repair, i was under the false impression (from an internal search for
John Kennedy Medal of Honor
and from a glance at the number of lks to the long name) that refs to JTK & others in various wars among them. I disabused myself of that belief later in the process of writing to you, realized only lying in bed that i had erred in doing the rename w/o (per default) leaving a Rdr behind, and had that first on my agenda for today. Also for the moment, i regret sounding "insulting", consider myself responsible if my clumsiness made you feel insulted, and apologize for my behavior. But i'm now about to be late for another commitment. --Jerzy•t 20:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I will provide a full and annotated record of that discussion, and resume it from that point. --Jerzy•t 17:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
If you get it to FA, you're my hero. ;D The partisanship has been pretty strong. I'm afraid you'll need all the luck you can get just keeping them off. That and a big stick. ;p TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 17:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
John H. Kelly
Nice work, never heard of him. Do you have any intelligence of where he was born, parental background, etc? Fergananim (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
March Coordinator elections
Military History project will be electing a new group of coords in March, and I'm pinging you as a suitable candidate. Please look over the the responsibilities and ask yourself if you'd be willing to serve the project in this way. I think you'd be great. BusterD (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Dude. You know I'm a fan, but I wish when you were making essential edits like this, you'd always check you were editing a vandalism-freeversion first. Isn't the first time this has come up on your talk page. BusterD (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
So you didn't notice that this was the condition of the page you were about to edit? The entire introduction was bold and you didn't notice before you made a bunch of edits. BusterD (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Nope sorry I usually don't read through the whole article when I make AWB edits because I am looking for specific things. I check to make sure that it didn't do anything obviously wrong and soemtimes I see vandalism but not always. Even if I had checked first I don't know that I would have caught this though.--Kumioko (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Re:FLCs
I see. I'm on the fence about this one, let me think about it for a while and I'll get back to comments later. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Richard O'Kane and AWB
Your bot has ruined the formatting on ref 2 in Richard O'Kane. Would you care to either call off the bot or suggest an alternate formatting that will work better? Rees11 (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Rees11 (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
KingbotK plugin
The latest snapshot (6269) includes some changes to KingbotK's code. I removed some old staff related to now deleted templates. Hopefully this will add a bit to the speed. Feel free to download and check for errors. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
destroyed?
I take umbrage at being described as a "destroyer" of pages, when the only edit I'd made since yours ([5]) removed a single template and corrected two dates; far from any fair description of destruction. For a heads-up, if you're interested, I've made further edits to the article; I've duly described them at the talk page, in an effort to preclude any merciless descriptors. — pd_THOR|=/\= | 04:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
WikiCup 2010 February newsletter
Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to Sasata (submissions), our round one winner (1010 points), and to Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions), who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). Staxringold (submissions) claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), Geschichte (submissions) claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points), Jujutacular (submissions) claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and Candlewicke (submissions) claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.
Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon Kumioko for his tremendous effort in the February 2010 Military History monthly article writing Contest, placing first with a total of 110 points from 45 articles. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Congrats! I'm not really in a position to vote on quality content reviews right now, I'm afraid. Have you ever considered submitting MOH articles for WP:featured topic? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Albert William Tweedy, Jr.. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert William Tweedy, Jr.. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Input Sought
I have been working on the 3rd Recon Medal of Honor a few days and would like an opinon of the work I've done in reguards to uniformity between all 4 recipients. The areas I've concentrated on were the "Citation" section and the "Awards sections". I also added thier rank insignia's to the infoboxes .
Here is a discussion I had prior to making the changes User talk:Looper5920#Question(also if you have any comments to the open question here, your input would be appreciated) . I can't see any reason why this type of uniformity should not be used acrossed all military personnel pages. In no means am I talking about thier life/military infromation. Displayed Citations and Awards can be formatted in this manner. While making these edits I have become very excited and found that this is a project that I would like to undertake. Here are the specific pages I've done, any and all input wanted. Thank you.
Well I have several suggestions. After reviewing Reasonor 1st putting images for ranks in the infobox is typically discouraged. It is ok to put an image for the branch of service or the country though. 2nd, there is mixed fillings about displaying the ribbon rack so expect some push back thier. Personally I think it should be there but some may argue otherwise. 3rd, you shouldn't put statements such as you did for awards in the infobox. You don't have to list every award they received but certainly things like the MOH, Navy cross and purple heart should be. Next, if you want to format the citation, which is also a matter of some debate, you should do it as is done on the John Basilone Article. Other than that the article is getting pretty close to B class territory, it needs some prose work so it isn't as much of a copy paste from the Who's who site and it needs inline citations but your doing a good job so far and keep up the good work. Also, after reviewing Graves the bottom row should never be inccomplete like that. Switch it around so the MOH is alone on the top row. Also, the citations should use blockquote as in the John Basilone Article vice ". I hope this helps. --Kumioko (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much. A couple quick questions, isn't it redundant to have awards at the bottom of the infobox and the same in the main body ? would it be acceptable to leave that parameter blank, the artical mentions the MOH many times ? and as to the image of rank I think it helps the layman reader recognize the the level of the subject. Again thank you for your in put Mlpearc MESSAGE 20:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem, I see your point about the rank, the problem is that it states somewhere in the MOS about limiting the use of images in infoboxes. Additionally since different ranks look different between services (USMC captain and Navy Captain for instance) it would probably be of limited value and confusing anyway. In regards to the awards being redundant, its fine, the argument could be made for everything else in the infobox. --Kumioko (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Your welcome, Also I didn't think to mention this before but if you look at the top of my User page youll see all the articles I have gotten to FA, A or GA statuses and you can look through those for ideas. Most of the featured ones are lists but I am close to getting Smedley Butler FA status. You can also look at the meny at the top of my user page and youll see a link for Medal of Honor. If you look in there I have listed all the articles, their current assessment and notes about many. There is also a link for articles that need to be created if you want to help out there. There is also a link on my menu for some of the books I have in my library about Medal of Honor recipients. I have a lot more (about 200 in all) and will be expanding that as I find the time. --Kumioko (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Kenneth Walker
You named my article on Kenneth Walker for an A-class review! I don't usually submit American military articles for A-class but this is okay... I take it that it is part of an effort to upgrade MOH articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Clarence Ransom Edwards
Hello, KumiokoCleanStart. You have new messages at Ejosse1's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
prose on Smedley
May I make a few minor tweaks to fix some prose issues? Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
See if that reads more smoothly. BTW, your decorations on the top of this page make dropping the talk back difficult. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
GA nomination for Daniel J. Callaghan
Hello Kumioko, thanks for your note. I did not have plans to submit Daniel J. Callaghan for GA review, but if you believe that it is worth a GA nomination, I would support you putting it forward. I would be pleased to work on the article further if there are recommendations for improvement. Janggeom (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating the article for GA review last month; Jackyd101 has now reviewed it and promoted it to GA class. Janggeom (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Please don't edit a page purely to bypass functional redirects and/or replace the "Image:" prefix with "File:". It's okay to include these changes along with edits that actually affect the pages' contents, but they should not be made on their own.
After a five-minute pause, you've resumed performing these inappropriate edits (such as this one and this one). Please stop. —David Levy 02:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I did stop making the edits as you requested. The first link you left is to an article I havent edited and the second was a meaningfrul edit. I replaced the nofootnotes template with morefootnotes because it has some it just needs more. --Kumioko (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry; as you can see from this page's revision history, I'm having a bit of difficulty keeping things straight tonight.
The first link contained a typo, which I've finally succeeded in correcting. I only see the replacement of {{Infobox Military Person}} with {{Infobox military person}} and paragraphs highlighted with no apparent changes indicated. Am I overlooking subtle formatting corrections?
I've struck the second link, as that was simply an error on my part. (My apologies again.) —David Levy 02:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The first one also had some correction to reference formatting. The MOS states (somewhere I cannot seem to locate at the moment) that there shouldbe no space between the reference and the item it is referencing. This edit removed that space. Its most clear in the one at the bottom. --Kumioko (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the explanation and for honoring the above request. My apologies again for the confusion. I seem to be more tired than I'd realized. —David Levy 03:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Issue with lead of Smedley Butler
I am trying not to start an edit war on an article that is currently up for FAC but I would like you to explain why my recent edits to the lead of Smedley Butler were completely wiped out. I think there is a severe problem with the lead the way it is now (see my comment at FAC). If you don't want to address this at FAC please respond here or on my talk page. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Here's one you may like to fix up. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
WikiCup 2010 March newsletter
We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. Hunter Kahn (submissions) leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. TonyTheTiger (submissions) currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17
Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow! What an extraordinary act! I've given you a GA review- it should pass easily but there are a few points I've raised. I hope you'll take it to MILHIST A-class when I've passed it. Suggestions are at Talk:Ross A. McGinnis/GA1. Best, HJ Mitchell | April Fool! 17:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I've passed it for you. Apologies for the delay in getting back to you- I'm away for easter at the minute and my talk page is busier than I'm used to it being! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
A banned user is operating under a new profile and I need to undo their changes. Your edit is in between several of their changes, so please understand that contributions you will be removed, then restored afterwards.Carmaker1 (talk) 05:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon Kumioko for his great efforts in the March 2010 Military History monthly article writing Contest, placing first with a total of 105 points from 17 articles. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Ross McGinnis
Hi, McGinnis is in WP Pennsylvania and the U.St. military history task force and since we have these subprojects it makes sense to put him in those and leave the United States project for national issues. The Vietnam war and the U.S. constitution belong in the U.S. project, they cannot be downsized, but McGinnis had no real influence or importance (I don't mean this to sound harsh) on national issues. What's national about him, the medal, is already in the fitting category. As for the capitalization, it makes no difference either way. Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Smedley Butler failing FAC
I just want to say that I think the article made great progress while the nomination was up and I kind of expected it to pass. When I have had articles fail at FAC I usuall step back from them for a few days or even a week or two and then find ways to address the final comments. I plan to keep watching the article and help out some if I can. I suspect you can have the article ready to pass FAC in a month or two. It is really a pretty good article. It is just that FAC is hard.Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Smedley Butler
I know you're disappointed. What is the plan? Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Its not the end of the world, I have been expecting it. I'll keep working on it. I already made some changes today but like I mentioned to Rusty on his talk page I am going to read back through it because some of the changes have changed the meanings of things so that do not accurately reflect the facts and are either wrong or lend POV. I am also going to expand several sections including the Banana Wars (several of the individual actions) and add more about his time at Quantico (it will probably be a full section of its own when Im done). I am also going to try and weave in how President Rossevelt almost closed down the USMC and rolled it into the Army and Smedley's dad worked to stop it with a little help from Smedley. In the end, no worries the article will be the better for it but its going to be a while before I can resubmit. I am going to be travelling a lot for work the next few months so it will probably be at least June before I can resubmit, probably August or September unless someone beats me too it. I'll try and get it done sooner though. --Kumioko (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the issue was entirely content (or lack of it), but certainly the issues around the business plot need some work. You also had prose issues I could not solve without a major rewrite, so you might enlist the aid of one of the experienced MH editors (Ian?) re that. Just an idea. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
List of Medal of Honor recipients
Hi Kumioko. What is the status of this list? There appear to be unresolved comments and dead links still, the article has not been modified since March. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Just a quick note to say that if you're not working on the outstanding comments, I'll remove this nomination. I hope not to do so, but since it's stalled, with outstanding comments, I'll have no other choice. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Not a problem, just didn't want to see your good work go to waste. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Re:Clarence Ransom Edwards
Not yet; I'll do one more read through tonight and pass or put it on hold. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 19:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Re: Better image
I normally utilize Photoshop to clean up the images. The wings you referenced had the background removed and the image converted to black and white, which seems to show the silver wings better (I'm not really sure why). If you come across any images that need work and you would like some help, please let me know. I have been cleaning up the Army Brigade SSI images of late, just because. I fool around with the images rather than play a game, so its not a problem. I will work on the Command Pilot wings soon, if you like. SGT141 (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
That would be great. I am currently working with a couple of other editors on getting Kenneth Walker to at least A class and he has that particular badge. --Kumioko (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
RE:Your article creator
Feel free to do that, I wouldn't mind, Actually I am happy for that. By the way I can provide you with all the help you want to create a smiler article creator MaenK.A.Talk 16:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Your doing great work, I ve just changed a couple of things that linked back to my pages, and you need to change the screen shot of the documentation, as it only suites my version :-), I ll be keeping in touch with you to let you know if I update or add anything MaenK.A.Talk 16:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem, just wanted to make sure you know that :-) MaenK.A.Talk 17:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
mmm, Sorry but I dont seem to understand what do you mean, can you please explain a little more, and I will be happy to help MaenK.A.Talk 19:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, basically I want to make an input box that has multiple boxes. So rather than creating a bare article it will have some data elements filled out in advance and populated when the article is created, like using a form in HTML if you are familiar with that. I found in the metawiki site where there used to be a bug that didn't allow the use of multiple boxes but that seems to have been fixed in Dec 09. It appears that if you use template:inputbox it will allow this type of thing but I haven't figured out the mechanics of how that template works yet. Essentially I would like to create an input form that allows enough data to be input into boxes that the article basically builds itself (at least a basic one with infobox, some basic body, persondata and a couple of basic categories.) I think if I have a form with ten or 12 questions on it then it will be much easier for novice editors to create pages. I hope this makes sense but please let me know if you need anything else.--Kumioko (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure I understand now, and I ll be working on this trying to create a smiler one, and make it work if it doesn't, I ll let you know about that very soon, maybe within hours :-) MaenK.A.Talk 19:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but it seems that the original HTML code doesn't allow the use of multiple input-boxes, we might request this from the HTML code creator, User:Eloquence, if you do please let me know MaenK.A.Talk 16:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
That is great, I ll be watching the page. The Idea of article wizard is great but wont help you creating multiple inputs to the same page, right?? MaenK.A.Talk 16:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
You are right it is a great step in the right direction, please let me know when you finish creating the wizard you are working on MaenK.A.Talk 08:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Joe bob, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. EuroPride (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Cathardic (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk page cleanup
I am trying to cleanup the talk pages a little bit like you are. Check an edit I did follwing an edit of yours.
Better add talk header only on high-traffic pages, pages with archives or long discussions.
Recall that nested parameter is not used anymore. Banners are automatically nested when inside WikiProjectBannerShell
It's great that your are using full names for project banners instead of shortcuts.
I took the tool out for a test drive, and I think it looks good so far. I do have a few points that you may want to consider as the tool progresses:
The initial instruction box that appeared at the top at the article disappeared after hitting preview. I think that it would be wise to have the box appear until the save button is pressed.
It should be states for the newbies that the image(s) they want to add to the article may need to be uploaded to the article before they are visible, or are located in the commons repository and added using "File" instead of "Image".
The see also section is technically a tricky issue, while the lower ranking articles can get away with the presence of a see also section those articles bearing down on GA,A, and FA class are advised to lose said section. Perhaps a note that the section should not be used if at all possible may be a good idea, although I leave that to you to determine as you go on.
The two talk page templates that should be added currently disappear if the preview button is hit, it may be wise to note that the templates will disappear at preview and therefor should be saved (or copy/pasted) to something like a word document page for safe keeping.
In the general guidelines section I think it may be helpful to note that new users may ask for help on their article on either of the relevant wikiproject talk pages.
Admins are likely to zoom in on any article written by noobs for being in poor shape, therefore it may be useful to note that any new articles may potentially end up tagged for csd deletion, and that noobs should not panic if this happens.
New articles usually experience a lot of editing because the new users typically nit pick over words and repeatedly come back to an article to try and improve it, for this reason it may be useful to note somewhere that they can add {{construction}} template to note that the article is being built.
It may be helpful to give a basic outline somewhere of the article structure; for example, "Typically, a biography article contains an intro, an early life section, career section, post career section, and lastly a death and legacy section." In this manner, new users can roughly organize the material into section we make use of, which should make the info easier to process.
These are all just my thoughts, but some of them may be worth something to you. Also, if your tool pans out, you may want to consider writing something for the academy so an instructional page will exist for new user to help them understand how the tool works. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Question on template
Hello again. I recently asked the very helpful editor Connormah to create a signature image for Leavitt Hunt, but the signature won't show up with the existing template. Do you happen to know how to fix that? Many thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
GAN backlog elimination drive - 1 week to go
First off, on behalf of myself and my co-coordinator Wizardman, I would like to thank you for the efforts that you have made so far in this GAN backlog elimination drive. It has been nothing short of a success, and that is thanks to you. See this Signpost article about what this drive has achieved so far.
We're currently heading into the final week of the drive. At this time, if you have any GANs on review or on hold, you should be finishing off those reviews. Right now, we have more GANs on review or on hold than we do unreviewed. If you're going to start a GA review, please do so now so you can complete it by the end of the month and so that the nominator has a full 7-day window to address any concerns.
Thank you for your participation in the April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive
GAN backlog elimination drives chart up to 1 May
On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, I'd like to especially thank you for your efforts over this past month's GAN backlog elimination drive. It has been nothing short of a complete success, which hopefully results in more expedient good article reviews, increasing users' confidence in the good article nomination processes. Even if you made just a small contribution, it still helped contribute to the success of this drive. Here is what we have accomplished this last month in this drive.
661 total nominations were reviewed. 541 of them passed (~81.8%), 97 (~14.7%) failed, and 23 (~3.5%) ended on hold.
Excluding extremes, the longest wait for someone's GAN to be review was about 11.5 weeks at the beginning. (I mistook the figure when I reported to the Signpost that it was 13.) At the end, with the exception of one that was relisted, the longest wait is now at 10 days.
63 different users participated, each having completed at least one GAN, with others also having helped out behind-the-scenes in making the drive a success.
The drive started with 463 GA nominations remaining and 388 unreviewed. At the end of the month, we ended with 89 remaining (374 or about 80.8% less) and 47 unreviewed (341 or about 87.9% less).
For those who have accomplished certain objectives in the drive, awards will be coming shortly. Again, thank you for your help in the drive, and I hope you continue to help review GA nominations and overall improve the quality of articles here on Wikipedia.
Regarding: List of Carpenter named articles and Carpenter (disambiguation) - Am I wrong to want/create/oppose deletion for a "List of" items (and duplication) not allowed/approved in that pacticular disambig page? But allowed in the List pages? Which rules need to be followed? Is it a case where the disambig crowd out rule the list crowd as hinted at on the deletion discussion? It also appears by comments that the disambig crowd has no real understanding what lists are about. Could they see Lists as some sort of threat? Ok now I am rambling ...
I respect what you have helped me with before. I need some advice. And I will follow your advice here because you are not currently involved. Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could go to the "Military decorations" section of Capt. Ivan Castro's article and place his ribbons and medals in the proper order of importance. Semper Fi. Tony the Marine (talk)
Planning Discussions Now Underway Regarding DC Meetup #10
You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
Please be advised that planning is now underway (see here) for DC Meetup #10.--NBahn (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I finally got some information I was waiting for and I added it to Louis H. Carpenter. This confirmed and updated dates for ranks, assignments, and positions. I also finally confirmed his service with the 5th United States Colored Cavalry Regiment. I would appreciate if you took a look at it. With another review, do you think this will finally get to A/FA status?
Please let me know. Jrcrin001 (talk) 08:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Line break formatting
Hi Kumioko. I notice that in this edit, you changed "<br />" to "<br/>". I believe that "<br />" (i.e. with the space) is the preferred format - see Help:Wiki_markup#Line_breaks. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 10:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes it is, I just changed a zillion to with the space! And wondering if we should use {{Break}} instead.... RichFarmbrough, 23:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC).
Can you please stop doing this? Or at least explain why you think this is a correct change to make? Also, are you actually making any functional changes with your AWB edits? AWB's rules of use prohibit using AWB for insignificant or inconsequential edits. DH85868993 (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi again Kumioko. Thanks for not changing "<br />" to "<br/>" any more. However you also appear to be changing "<br>" to "<br/>" (without the space), e.g. in this edit. Help:Wiki_markup#Line_breaks says that "<br>" is OK, or if you do want to change them, they should be changed to "<br />" (with the space). Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Portal images
Looks like good progress now the Bot is on the scene. Trouble is Category:Templates with transitional syntax takes a long time to fill. You will find pages which transclude portal with a second default parameter listed under 2, unless they have another parameter when they are listed after Z. Nothing trivial left, I think, depending on how long the rest of the pages take to get categorised, but still some work, potentially. RichFarmbrough, 23:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC).
It was bound to take a while with 2+ million pages with a portal on them. Right know I am adding the Biography portal to some biographical articles but I shouldn't be too long and then I was going to go back to cleanup up some of the others again. --Kumioko (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Well... maybe. Most of those pages are simply transclusions through project banners, and if the rendering/caching code was/is smart enough it would realise that the banners were unchanged, and not tag the talk pages for updating, so we would be talking maybe 30-40,000 pages tops. RichFarmbrough, 00:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC).
Reflist
According, to WP:FOOT, "The choice between {{Reflist}} and <references /> is a matter of style; Wikipedia does not have a general rule.". According to WP:CITEHOW, "You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected." So articles that already use <references> should not be converted to use reflist instead. I noticed you made this sort of change with AWB on several logic articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
It's no problem; the documentation is somewhat hard to find. The main style issue is the size of the reference list: <references> uses a normal font and {{reflist}} uses a smaller one. Some people prefer one, some prefer the other.
I undid the references→reflist change in your other AWB edit from today, but not from any of the earlier ones. Please feel more than welcome to quickly run through my recent contributions with with AWB to redo the other changes (mostly, it was just changing portalpar to portal, I think). — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
and spacing
This edit [6] has the reflist problem again, and also a strange issue with removing the newline after a section header. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
AWB mistake
Hi, I saw you autocorrected Vallisneria americana, the scientific name for wild celery, to Vallisnerian Americana because it fit the rule "a american -> an American". Something to look out for in the future. Thanks. Chubbles (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Medal of Honor images
I too am objecting to De728631 removing Medal of Honor images from my articles. Do not be deterred by this guy. How do we report him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy Fletcher (talk • contribs) 23:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, KumiokoCleanStart. You have new messages at Sadads's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
There seems to be a strange lag affecting it right now. I was hoping all the un-named parameters (in articles) were sorted but more keep popping up. RichFarmbrough, 16:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC).
Oh - the fixed up ones are probably SmackBot. RichFarmbrough, 22:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC).
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Removing empty ref tags with AWB
You made an automated fix to Youth incarceration in the United States that doesn't make sense, and I wanted to let you know before you do it to too many other pages. Your script removes all empty <ref></ref> tags, but it is doing so even in comments (and possibly in nowiki tags depending on how it is implemented). Which means one of the standard comments on a page (that instructs users on how to add new references) is being screwed up (it instructs them to use tags to add references without saying which tags). Please don't make that automated fix for the time being. —ShadowRanger(talk|stalk) 17:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I believe I have fixed that problem now and I added an edit that should put the tag back to any of the ones I deleted if I hit them again. Since I typically go over the same articles periodically the next time I hit them it will be fixed. Plus this is a relatively rare message so it shouldn't be that huge of a problem. Please let me know if you nitice anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for responding and fixing the issue. I disagree that it is a relatively rare message (the new article wizard puts that comment in every references section IIRC), but so long as it is fixed, there's no problem. Thanks again! —ShadowRanger(talk|stalk) 22:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Commonscat
Why are you changing "commonscat" to "commons category" on many articles? Is there something wrong with using "commonscat"? Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I created a page at Wikipedia:GLAM/SI as a good central place for discussion of ideas of what we can offer to the Smithsonian. Sadads (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I responded to your questions. Sadads (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Talk page change on Douglas MacArthur
In this difference I'm not exactly sure what you had in mind but the collapsed layout there is needed. I've reverted your changes twice now. Brad (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Please review a small edit here in contexts which are established here and here. --Tenmei (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
BRFA Filed
Just to let you know, I finally got around to filing a BRFA to do the USCOTM automation. The BRFA can be found here if you wish to comment on it. Noomtalkstalk 20:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Awesome thanks. I have really limited access to internet for the next couple weeks but if you want me too I can add a nomination as a test!. --Kumioko (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
TfDs
Thanks to you Cleaning out old templates is a little bit of regular maintenance that needs to be done by somebody. I'm glad that you're interested in getting rid of them yourself. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
US courts and judges wikiproject
I was trying to combine the US wikiproject banner and US courts and judges wikibanner on a talk page, but you haven't assimilated courts and judges. I was shocked. Did you forget this one? Don't they know resistance is futile. Bgwhite (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Lol, I guess not. There are actually quite a few US related ones that aren't supported at the moment including several states and cities. Kumioko (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
barnstar
The Socratic Barnstar
for your cogent argument about the toxic culture here. i trust you have considered the possibility of an occupy wikipedia insurgency Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 22:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
button produces <br />?
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Earth, you will be blocked from editing. 129.21.64.241 (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Sasata (submissions), our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than 
Hunter Kahn (submissions) and 
TonyTheTiger (submissions) (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to 
Fetchcomms (submissions)- his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.
Staxringold (submissions) claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), 
Geschichte (submissions) claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points), 
Jujutacular (submissions) claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and 
Candlewicke (submissions) claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.
