User talk:Looper5920/Archive 5

Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something bothering me

Hey Looper, Since you seem to be the de facto leader of Marine Corps editing on Wikipedia; I'll pose this question to you: I've read "The Marine Rifle Squad" (Fleet Marine Force Manual 6-5), so I get where the "locate, close with, destroy" stuff comes from, but that manual is for a rifle squad, not an infantry battalion. So why does just about every battalion article include that verbage? Yeah, it's motivating, but not technically correct. Semper Fi

Windyjarhead 01:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty lies in finding a way to summarize what an infantry battalion does for a short blurb in an infobox. Notice I didn't even the 2nd part of that line "and repel the enemy's...." I struggled over this at the end of last year and the reason I went with that line is that in the end it does describe the main mission of the Marine Corps infantry even though it may not be in the most encyclopedic terms. Another reason I kept it is that it adds a little bit of Marine character to an otherwise bland infobox. I am not married to the line and would be more than willing to work to find a fitting replacement if that is your goal. Let me know. Cheers--Looper5920 01:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just Wondering

I was just thinking, don't you think it would be a good idea to add a section in the USMC portal, similar to the "Selected Biography" for the "GA Rated Articles of the United States Marine Corps". Then post the links of the 15th MEU and 2/9 there for now. I mean it would be nice if those who go to the portal learned about these (and who knows how many others in the future) articles. What you think? Tony the Marine 05:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. Maybe create a section in the "Things you can do" box that list a few articles that are GA status and then a link to a page that list them all (for the future when we attain more than two). Those are my initial thoughts. Were you thinking something similiar or its own separate box?--Looper5920 07:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Your idea sounds good and so does a seperate box. I wonder what ERcheck would say to this? Oh by the way, Pedro del Valle has been nominated for GA. I think that it has a good chance. Have you noticed the addition work I've done on 2/9? I don't know if it's worth it to go through the FA hassle. What do you think? Semper Fi Tony the Marine 04:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - I'd say hold off until ERcheck gets back before pulling the trigger or any new sections. He usually has some fresh insight or a different way of looking at things. I have seen that 2/9 and Pedro del Valle have been active recently. You should not have any problems with the del Valle article once the refs are all good to go. Wish I was better at them or I'd help out more. For know I don't know if 2/9 is the article that should be the first to go up for FA status. Don't know if it is encommpassing enough. My thought has always been that VMA-214 has the best chance because many people have heard of the "Blacksheep", there are libraries worth of research info on them and they also had their own TV show. The article as it stands now needs alot of work but I have always been partial to it. Just my thoughts.--Looper5920 04:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on all counts. I took a look at the VMA-214 article and it looks good. Incidently, I have a book that has a picture of the original members of the squadron (including Boyington) posing on top of the wings of one of the planes. Semper Fi Tony the Marine 05:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Corps Supply

The source is Estes' Marine Officer's Guide, it lists Marine Corps Supply not as a proper noun, but as a catch-all for all Marine supply services. perhaps the (lowercase) term supply services or supply establishment would be better.

Would welcome your input on the two tagged disputed/uncited sections. The Reputation I think just has to go as there's no precedent in other articles; the use of "ex-Marine" I have heard via scuttlebutt but have been unable to confirm with reliable sources.--Mmx1 01:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Marine Corps does not have a separate Supply command so I would not mention it. Units & bases have their own organic supply points. THe Marine Corps basically breaks down into: 1) Operating Forces (FMF, MCSF and MSG Bn), 2) Supporting Establishment (HQMC, TECOM, MCCDC, Recruiting Command, bases and stations and logistics bases) and 3) Marine Forces Reserve. I agree with dropping the reputation section for now. Odds are though that it will reappear as a criticism section or something fo the like.--Looper5920 07:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I'm reproducing it as Estes presents it, but I do see elsewhere that the Reserve is separated from the Supporting Command, and I think that's more standard. I do find a Material Command under the Supporting EstablishmentMCWP 4-1 Logistics, p32, and also a Marine Logistics Command on the main site's list of units. The NPS list of major Marine commands has a link for the former that redirects to the latter [1], so I think they are one and the same.

This constant renaming is not helping things. It seems like FMF and FMFLANT and FMFPAC have been recently replaced with MARFOR, MARFORLANT and MARFORPAC.--Mmx1 04:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for using the term FMF. It is no longer used and the MARFORs are the appropriate term. Just habit I guess. I have listed above that the reserve and supporting establishment are separate. Be advised that Marine Logistics has had a major overhaul in the last year so many historical references will be wrong and many units may not have fully transitioned to there new names or commands. You just need to look at the Combat Logistics Regiments where the units under them are still named CLBs and MSSGs. From what I know Logistics Command is the appropriate term, is part of the supporting establishment and consists of the 2 MCLBs, Blount Island and other odds and ends.--Looper5920 05:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ilario Pantano

hi looper, I noticed the update to the infobox, for us dummies, what's TBS? Thanks!--Paul E. Ester 20:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bad on that one. I was not thinking when I put it there without linking it. Thank you for the heads up thanks Mmx1 for fixing it for me.--Looper5920 20:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names of articles

Hi Looper, got your message on my talk page on the Afghanistan and Iraq order of battle pages and I think that's a great suggestion. I went with those names because I couldn't come up with a better title but you've done that job for me now. :-) Thanks for running the idea by me and I'll take care of moving the pages. If I have trouble, I'll probably be back to request your help. Cheers.-- Dsw 21:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved both pages and I fixed the info on the Iraq image page, but thanks for your offer to help. However, another question about the Iraq page. The Complete Current U.S. ORBAT section shortens a lot of the unit names like this: 2-6 Infantry. Not wanting to be to "military insider," you think it would be OK to change those to something like this: 2nd Battalion, 6th Infantry Regiment. I also don't know where that info came from, so I need to check who added it and find his reference. Thanks for your help. Cheers.-- Dsw 00:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I definetly would spell out the entire name of the unit the first time that you use it and then put its abbreviation in parenthesis after it and then use the shortened version for the rest of the time. Yut--Looper5920 04:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice and your work on the Marine regiments. Much appreciated. Cheers. (Dsw 20:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

1956 Hungarian Revolution

Your "assessment" of 1956 Hungarian Revolution resulted in the bottom of the Talk page being deleted. I have heard that this can happen when editing long pages with Firefox. I have reverted the page, but you may need to go back and see if I left the "B" rating in place. Ryanjo 00:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Didn't mean to cause any issues on the page. Hopefully it remains--Looper5920 00:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's Google Toolbar for Firefox that has this bug. Some pages display a warning when edited, with a link pointing to the bug description; if you see this warning, you should either use section editing, or check that you still have the end of the page in your edit box before submitting. K issL 08:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Audacious class

Hi there: isn't it a little harsh to label this as a stub-class article? It is, after all, meant only as a lead-in to the articles on the two ships of the class, Audacious and Invincible. Without duplicating the texts I am not certain how the article could be expanded.--Anthony.bradbury 18:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went back and changed it after reviewing it. I went on an assessing binge yesterday and I knew that a few of them would be contested. After looking at it again you were right. I changed it to Start. Hope this works and thanks for the heads up.--Looper5920 20:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelled out units names

Hi Looper, I saw that you changed the format of the names of Marine units on the Iraq orbat page. To be consistent, should we spell out the army battalions' and squadrons' names too?—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Wesleysmorgan (talk • contribs)

I would suggest spelling it out as most of the people reading it will not know what many of the abbreviations and numbers mean. Just a suggestion.--Looper5920 04:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something for you...

I award you this barnstar for your commendable efforts towards clearing the backlog of unassessed military history articles. Kirill Lokshin 01:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the star. I shouldn't have started this though. My OCD has kicked in and now it has become a quest. Someday we'll get it down to 0. Again, Thank you.--Looper5920 01:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Fifteenth Army

Hey, thanks for assessing the article U.S. Fifteenth Army. I've been working on it off and on for a while. I don't have access to a good book I need about it but maybe I will get more information soon. I have a few article in the Military History area I want to acheive FA status. The assessment is helpful. If you have any ideas on what I could add to the article please leve them for me, if it's not too much trouble. Mfields1 23:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HMCS Prince David

I'm new to Wikipedia and still unsure of some of the conventions, I hope that this is the correct way of communicating. I came across the HMCS Prince David page, originated by Em3rald, and decided to add some pictures and information ( I have a small scrapbook of pictures that belonged to my late father who served on the PD for 2.5 years). I noticed that you have given the page a "Start" rating and I was wondering how much further a page like this ought to be or should be developed? Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thank you.Alberg22 01:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Alberg22[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Photo

Thanks, great photo! Did you notice how del Valle stands out with his Marine haircut? maybe the photo can be inserted into the Battle of Guadalcanal article. I'll check and see. semper Fi Tony the Marine 20:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Army Units

Looper, great work with the Marine unit pages. Just wondering if you'd be interested in doing some Army unit pages too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:12.149.39.84 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Hey Marine, I just wanted you to know that Pedro del Valle was promoted to GA Status. Semper Fi Tony the Marine

I think you are batting 1.000 for July and August for these GA submissions. Congratulations and as always I was glad to helpout where I could. And to think...you reverted my infobox at first. Shame on you. Just kidding. Great work. Cheers--Looper5920 20:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HMCS Prince David

Thanks Looper, There isn't a lot of published info. on the CN/ RCN- AMCs. I have a couple of books, one of which was published in November of '44. Taking your advice, I've added some material, footnotes and a graphic. Until I find more verified source information, I'll have to leave the page as is. Once I feel more comfortable with WIKI, I may try to combine all three ships into one big page. Please let me know what you think. Thanks.

Alberg22 22:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Alberg22[reply]

Portal comments, etc.

Thanks for the note. Sorry to be absent for so long. I've sent you an e-mail update.

I've also made some suggestions on the Portal coordination page. I'll check back later.

— ERcheck (talk) 00:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MCMAP Article

I made some changes on the MCMAP section, it looks pretty bad, but useful info. I don't know HTML that well so it'll take me a bit to fix the appearance. but, let me know how it looks.Gelston 20:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think is needed to get MCMAP up to B class? I personally think it looks better than the example for a start class and nearly, if not, on par with the example for the B class. Maybe I'm missing something? Thanks. (Oh, I moved the comment above, which I made earlier, to the bottom of your talkpage.) Gelston 09:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an eye

Could you keep an eye on this stub? 1 Assault Group Royal Marines Thank you Wandalstouring 22:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you online?

Looper5920, Are you online now? — ERcheck (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that User:Mmx1 and User:Nobunaga24 are helping with the vandalism. As I'm still new to much of this, I'm trying to make sure that I follow process. The anonIPs have stopped for now, as have the registered two. See Mmx1's talk page and Nobunaga24's talk page if you are interested in following the discussion. BTW, thanks for reporting this and giving me a chance to assist. — ERcheck (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See this thread on my talk page. For now, looks like it is handled. Please feel free to let me know if the problem continues. — ERcheck (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the article is now semi-protected against IPs and new editors. — ERcheck (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding Marine Force Recon

What's the status regarding Force Recon and SOCOM? Has that ever been successfully resolved?⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you the truth I am not to sure. I will have to do some digging. It is not something I have been keeping up with but I will have a look during the week. Glad to see you are back editing these days. ALways good to have friendly faces around. Cheers--Looper5920 03:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just had a quick break due to work, I'm going nowhere. I've been spending some time cleaning up the special operations unit's and doctrine pages. When I get bored with that I'm going to go over to US Naval units and vessels. Anyway, the SOCOM/Force Recon thing has been a questionable issue that's never been settled to my knowledge, was wondering if you knew a bit more on the Marine side of things than I do. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been doing alot of maintenance work on USMC articles (vice creating them) and have taken on the dauting task of wading through the the unassessed history articles. It will take a few months but eventually I'll get through it. Just needed a bit of a break from creating USMC articles for a bit. Wanted to broaden the scope a little. I'll look to see if Force recon will remain with the Fleet Marine Force or if it is being renamed and folded under the new SOCOM command--Looper5920 03:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Marine editor?

I just noticed a new account created for User:The few the proud. (No edits yet.) I'm guessing there is a USMC associate. I sent him/her a welcome; perhaps you might say "hello" or keep an eye out to help him/her navigate. — ERcheck (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilco--Looper5920 01:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about this for "In the news"?

Found this article that might be a good "In the news" candidate:

Andrew Scutro (September 5, 2006). "Navy, Marine Corps finalize new operations concept". Marine Corps Times. Retrieved 2006-09-05.

— ERcheck (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I'll ask you to make the change as I am at work at the moment and my connection is slow due to the firewall. Also take a look at Distributed operations which is the concept they are talking about. Should be mentioned in there as well.Thanks--Looper5920 02:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give me some critical feedback?

I'm basically satisfied with portal layout and portal article boxes; I'm in the process of writing guideline and welcome talk pages before showing this to the group. After we get some group consensus, we can take this off under-construction. BusterD 00:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkout User:BusterD/portal where've I've been accumulating stuff. There's no shortage here. I'm going to benefit from all that ACW enthusiasm out there (and have to deal with all that ACW enthusiasm out there). I suspect that FA's will almost write themselves (I might have to farm a few myself, of course). If I limit myself entirely to B-Class content and higher, I don't have enough material, but if I'm generous and let start class articles appear I can make this work nicely. Won't be a summer walk, though. BusterD 12:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

News

I have some great news that I want to share with you. Istarted a movement to have the names of Capt's. Manuel Rivera and Humbert Roque Versace inscribed in "El Monumento de la Recordacion" , which is a monument located in San Juan, Puerto Rico dedicated to the solidiers born in the island or of Puerto Rican descent who served in the Armed Forces and gave their lives for the United States. For some unknown reason these two names were not in the monument.

The thing is that my quest has paid off and the President of the Puerto Rican Senate invited me to attend the unveiling in Memorial Day of 2007.

Pretty cool,huh? Tony the Marine 22:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, great stuff Tony. I made a few clean up edits to the Manuel Rivera page, hope you didn't mind. Ever thought about maybe converting it over to the standard format? Just a thought. Like last time, it's up to you. You have been on a pretty impressive run lately. Mentions in Congressional bills, invited to events by the PR senate.... On another note, I came across an article on Emiliano Mercado del Toro. I looked at the edit history and did not see any edits by you so I thought maybe you had not come across it. Could use some spicing up considering some of his acomplishments. I'd do it myself but I believe you would attack it with a bit more veracity. Cheers--Looper5920 10:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Gratz tony! Looper, I have some news of my own. My organization was featured in VFW's magazine: [2] (At print time I was the VP of Collegiate Veterans Association, I've since become President.) ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 11:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit counts

congrats on 16k. What tool are you using to check your edit count? I'm curious as to where I'm at. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go to my user page, scroll down to the bottom and then click on the second "Edit counter". Just type in your name and you should be good to go.--Looper5920 10:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal, etc.

What do you think of this photo for the Portal?

Check out this photo.

Caption: 8/18/2006 HANGING ON: U.S. Marines participate in a Special Patrol Insertion/Extraction exercise as they hang from a 120-foot line attached to a CH-46E Sea Knight helicopter from Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 265 over Okinawa, Japan, Aug. 11, 2006. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Eric D. Arndt.

It is from Defense Link photos site. — ERcheck (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it is a cool photo the issue I have with it is that the CH-46 is blurred and cut in half and the darkness of the photo doesn't really make it possible to see any of the Marines. Thay are just shadows for the most part. For now I probably wouldn't go for this as a feature photo. Yut--Looper5920 22:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standardizing USMC squadron info

I just noticed an edit to VMFA-314 in which the tail code was added. Not a problem, an interesting piece of info. However, it was added to the intro paragraph. I thought that the section on squadron aircraft might be a better place to put it — however, there was not such a section in this article. Perhaps a standard template in the Portal, as you've done for Chesty, etc. What do you think? — ERcheck (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit late on the response but I will put one up there.--Looper5920 22:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New user to greet

New user registered today — User:Marine4Life51. I shared the Portal link with him/her. When you get a chance, you might drop a line. — ERcheck (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

You seem to have assessed Spanish Armada in Ireland - is there a way of getting feedback? Thanks.--Shtove 17:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of feedback? Thanks.--Shtove 22:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Kind of got lost amongst the shuffle. Give me a few minutes to look it over and I'll drop you a note. I have been slowly working my way through the thousands of articles that still need assessing so I have developed a bit of tunnel vision. --Looper5920 22:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That helps.--Shtove 15:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl W. Weiss

I could only find a little more — the specific DANFS reference and the Navy Cross citation. I've added that to the article. — ERcheck (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rating the Combat Action Badge Entry

This is minor, but I have to disagree about rating the Combat Action Badge a start-class entry. The entry is very comprehensive for a badge that has barely a year of history behind it. I wouldn't presume to change the rating since I was involved in the article's construction, however I think the article is about as complete as it can be until the badge gets some more history behind it. Atfyfe 04:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that's reason enough right there. If there's not a lot of information behind the badge, it can never really reach up to FAC status, and isn't that what the rating system is all about? Then again, I hate the CAB and think its existence is an insult to the CIB, so that's my bias. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USMC bio assessment

I noticed that you recently assessed the Clinton A. Puckett article as "Start". I've made some updates. What more do you think it would need to make a "B-class"? It would be nice to get all of the bios to at least B-class — perhaps starting with SMOMCs and CMCs. — ERcheck (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the additions you have made have made it "B-class" and I will make the changes. It's tough sometimes because I am doing thousands of assessments (to get through the backlog) and when you go through quickly you tend to look for 5 or 6 to base your assessments on. It gets me about the 90% solution but some will always be questioned. Thanks for the note--Looper5920 13:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another potential Portal photo

Here is another potential photo for the Portal: [3] What do you think?

Now on MARSOC page.

Your comments on Portal stuff?

— ERcheck (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas for Portal format change

I was just looking over the USMC Portal and it struck me that the "Selected biography" was way down on the page. What do you think about moving it up to the top right-hand corner. The "features" would be at the top. In the right column, how about: Bio, News, Quote, DYK. The bio isn't usually long, so the News would be near the top. What do you think? — ERcheck (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Give it a shot. On another Portal note as well do you think it would be worth it to look at maybe getting it up to Featured Portal status? Not sure what that would entail but I think we are at least 80% there.--Looper5920 01:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure either .....

Things that might be helpful to get to a Featured Portal status:

Probably some planning ahead — such as having things in the queue for the rest of the year
Feedback/input section
I don't know what else either.

As far as adjusting the Portal, I did it once, but don't recall how to do it. I'm not at my regular computer for the next week or so, so either it will have to wait for me to figure it out; OR, you could do it (hint). ;-)

Any comments re my other Portal suggestions/questions/etc.?

— ERcheck (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK ... I made a slight adjustment to the Portal page ... moved the bio up in the page, but left all the rest the same. — ERcheck (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. (Please Do not edit other peoples user pages)--Frogsprog 21:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Webley Revolver

Why did you object to this article being A-class? How would you improve it? Be specific, because I'm at my wits end with the whole evaluation process and I'm sick to death of people complaining about the articles I work on without being prepared to help improve them as well. --Commander Zulu 13:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your edits

It is not allowed to edit someone's user page without permission, please desist from touching mine! --Frogsprog 21:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll lay off, however I still believe the userbox violates the guidelines for content restriction and what a user page should not have. If nothing else it points to what a real class act you are.--Looper5920 21:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

class act? what do you mean? --Frogsprog 21:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate an answer, what do you mean by a class act? --Frogsprog 21:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Assessment question

In general, "NA" is only for things that are intended to be merely lists. If it's a legitimate article topic that happens, at the moment, to contain only a list, it would be "Stub" or "Start", depending on how detailed it is and how generous you're feeling. :-) Kirill Lokshin 22:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assessments

I'm interested in understanding how you apply assessment criteria. Eaxample: you recently applied "stub" to Seenu Atoll. What would it need, in your opinion, to raise it to "start"? Yes, I've read the criteria, but I'd like your take on it. I deliberately refrain from doing any assessments as I clearly wouldn't apply them in a manner consistent with others. Look forward to hearing from you. Folks at 137 08:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that I rated Seenu Atoll as a Stub was that there is a stub listing at the bottom of the page. Most of the articles that I rate I do not claim to be an expert on so when I see a stub marking at the bottom of the page I defer to those that created the page. They know more than I do so 9 out of 10 times I stay with the stub. On some occassions you can tell that the stub is a hold over and then I will remove the stub. The article is probably a "Start" but it was borderline enough for me to stick with the stub. I have thought about writing out my entire thought process for assessing and I may still, but it would be fairly long. The other factor to consider is that I have donw a few thousand of these in the past month so there are about 7 or 8 things I consider so I can do them fairly quickly. My main goal is to get through the 7000 deep backlog and I feel that 95% of the time I am on the mark. Hope this helps. Cheers--Looper5920 10:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply - in future, I'll remove stub listings if I do a significant amendment, although I'm wary about performing assessments. If you get time between assessments, I remain interested in the "7 or 8 things" that you consider. Sorry to bother you, but I've been advised to approach assessors for info - although I still think that an indication of the basis for rating would be helpful on talk pages. Folks at 137 11:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October Portal coordination

October 2006 has some suggestions on the Coordination page. Just added an idea for the bio. What do you think. We have a week. — ERcheck (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats - USMC is a Featured Article!

Congrats to all the editors who worked so hard on the USMC article — now a Featured Article! — ERcheck (talk) 04:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 19:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

editing

Why did you edit User talk:Mrdthree's user talk page? Isn't what you did a violation of Wikipedia policy? Duke53 | ^Talk 13:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I removed vandalism. Frogsprog is not an administrator and does not have the right to post a block tag on anyone's page.--Looper5920 23:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in cleaning up an article?

Care to work your squadron skills on VF-74? — ERcheck (talk) 03:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States Marine Corps template

Hi - I saw your addition of a table to the top of the USMC article. I wonder if it would be worth making it into a proper navigation template, {{USMC}} say, and adding it to all of the relevant articles? Or perhaps one exists already? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably be made into a proper template but I am not a fan of adding it that many articles because its size and placement would negatively affect most articles and their infoboxes.--Looper5920 11:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably best to leave it off any article with an infobox or use a horizontal one instead. However, many of the articles in the navbox don't have such infoboxes (e.g. Organization, Uniforms, and the lists). The lists, particularly, would benefit from such a navbox as they already have an abundance of whitespace. Perhaps put a note to that effect on the template talk page or in a html comment that it's a limited use template, not for all USMC articles.--Mmx1 16:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal - update time and suggestions

Looper5920,

Are you taking on the updates for October?
On the Featured Portal question, see Portal_talk:Military_of_the_United_States for ideas.

— ERcheck (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See newest suggestion for the article, etc. — ERcheck (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the right side. Will look into later today. — ERcheck (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ijust sent you an email aswell.--Looper5920 11:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See coordination page - bio & quote idea. If you agree, I'll change out tomorrow. — ERcheck (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you ok with my bio and quote suggestions? — ERcheck (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good on the bio... quote, while a bit long (edit maybe to shorten) is good to go as well.--Looper5920 11:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK... I've completed the right column updates to the portal (quote was shortened). Left side is yours. — ERcheck (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I am at work now so I should be able to update today. --Looper5920 23:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R&AW

Thank you for rating R&AW page as part of Military history WikiProject. It will be immensely helpful if you leave any comments or suggestions to improve the article at the talk page. Legaleagle86 11:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abe clan

Just by coincidence, I was in the middle of editing Abe clan when you assessed it. There's still quite a lot of work to be done, but I'd invite you to take a look at it and perhaps consider upping it to "Start"-class. Also, if you have any knowledge of the subject, it'd be great if you could help out. There are quite a number of people named Abe throughout history, and I have no idea how closely they are related or to what extent they can or cannot be considered the same clan. This isn't nearly as straightforward as something like the Minamoto, Tokugawa, or even Takeda clans. Thanks. LordAmeth 15:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"New" USMC articles

I've added two new bios (see Portal new articles). Minnie Spotted-Wolf was pointed out to me by Rlevse. I'll see if I can find more info to expand it. If you have more info, please add as well. Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:11WINGinsignia.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:11WINGinsignia.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Wwagner 19:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SdKfz 252

I know your busy Looper5920, but I would appreciate if you gave this page I just started http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SdKfz_252 a look see, since I am still kinda new and am unsure if I did everything right. Thanks in advance Cpuwhiz11 23:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines; James Bradley (author); 508th Infantry Regiment; Al Matthews; Air superiority fighter; Killed in action; Devil Dog; 307th Marine Battalion; Marine Doom; H-34 Choctaw; Officer Candidate School; James Roosevelt; Frank J. Bart; Kin, Okinawa; Chu Lai; Pusan Perimeter; Khe Sanh; Operation Uphold Democracy; Camp Hansen

Cleanup: MCSOCOM Detachment One; Ground attack aircraft; AIM-54 Phoenix
Merge: Vietnam War (lists); U.S. 4th Infantry Division; Bernard Bailyn
Add Sources: William R. Higgins; List of war crimes; Jo Jo White
Wikify: Philippine National Police Aviation Security Command; Fort Riviere; MV John Hamilton Gray
Expand: Hardpoint; Army of the Republic of Vietnam; Viking revival

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 ForteTuba, 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 13:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WPMILHIST assessments

I just wanted to thank you for your incredible efforts in assessing articles. I would feel bad to assess my own articles, even when they're obviously stubs, but you always seem right behind me, assessing articles I've written mere hours after I've written them. Thanks. LordAmeth 13:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I have kind of made it a personal mission to clear the backlog of unassessed articles. I think I bit off more than I can chew but I am going to keep trying for a bit. If there is ever any help I can provide please let me know.--Looper5920 23:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New article - Walter Stauffer McIlhenny

A new USMC article — Walter Stauffer McIlhenny — was created by Skb8721 on Oct 9. (He also has added to Lew Walt. I nominated the McIlhenny article for DYK — I think it has a great hook. When it was first created, I assessed it as a stub. Please take a look, see if it should move up to "Start". — ERcheck (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing it. — ERcheck (talk) 04:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the Main Page. The article on Walter Stauffer McIlhenny made DYK. — ERcheck (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In sync

I just found that link this week. The History website is begin revamped, with new items added every few days. Note that there are now pictures with the Birthday article. What do you think about the first cake to go with the History of the USMC for the picture to illustrate the selected article? — ERcheck (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment request

When you get a moment, would you take a look at Lawrence H. Livingston and assess the article? Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting during your break?

Since you recently voted on the Philadelphia article name change, I thought you might be interested in taking a break from your break and participating on the vote to make a similar name change for Los Angeles. See Talk:Los Angeles, California. Also, if you put my user page on your watchlist, you'll see notifications of other similar votes. --Serge 18:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibreaking?

Can't keep away, eh? ;-) See your e-mail. We've not come to conclusion on November updates. — ERcheck (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Department of the Pacific

An anon and another editor have been making a disambiguation of Department of the Pacific on Marine Corps articles to Department of the Pacific (USMC) (which does not exist). The existing article is about a U.S. Army command of the 1800s. This article was linked in a number of USMC bios ... 1920s to 1940s. I understand why an editor would want to point the link away from the Army command, but having redlinked disamb statement at the top Army article and in the Marine Corps bios needs to be remedied. I don't have enough material on the USMC Department of the Pacific for an article. Do you? My only accessible reference is the USMC Historical Reference Pamphlet — A Chronology of the United States Marine Corps, 1947-1964. — ERcheck (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philly meetup

Hi! There will be a Wikipedia Meetup in Philadelphia on 4 November. If you're interested in coming, RSVP by editing Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia 2 to reflect the likelihood of your being able to attend. If you have any questions, feel free to ask my talk page. Hopefully, we'll all see you (and each other) on the 4th! --evrik 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back in a day - how about this image

What do you think of Image:Puller-Birthday.jpg for a Portal image for November? Just an idea. I've put it in his article. — ERcheck (talk) 05:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you made the change out. See the Coordination page for some November ideas. — ERcheck (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:AroniminkClubHouse.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AroniminkClubHouse.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ccwaters 21:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal updates - over to you

I've changed out the quote, added a DYK, and have been updating the news. I'll leave the article and the biography to you. I've left suggestions on the Coordination page.

With regard to the merge/delete question, I have a few questions. Let me review further. — ERcheck (talk) 04:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check your e-mail.

See you finished all the updates. Looks good. Nice to have it done prior to November 10. I finished off the archives and tagging the articles. — ERcheck (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't check email at the moment since I am doing some shady editing from work. I will get to it later this evening. Thanks for doing the archive work. I always forget about that. --Looper5920 00:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review/comment request

I noticed that you reverted an external link spam in the Parris Island article. Check out Ron Tucker, a biography created by the contributor of the same; in addition, Ron Tucker was added to the List of famous Marines. I have concerns about notability. Please review, and if appropriate, tag the article. — ERcheck (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Veterans Day

I wish you a Happy Veterans Day Tony the Marine 03:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article to reviews - Jason Dunham

Jason Dunham

Hi. The original article on Cpl Dunham was created on March 30, 2006. Yesterday (November 10), a new article was created at Jason L. Dunham. I suggested that they be merged. I only put the tag on the second article as it is newly created and essentially has one contributor. (I left a note on the editor's talk page). I've made a number of edits to the original article. If you have some time, would you mind taking a look. — ERcheck (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States Marine Corps School of Infantry

SOI needs attention. As all enlisted Marines pass through SOI, it should be one of the key articles, on par with the MCRD. I made an attempt at expanding it. Would you please review and expand/edit? — ERcheck (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idea

What do you think of a category for China Marines? — ERcheck (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent you an e-mail. Please take a look. — ERcheck (talk) 06:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the award and compliment. I look forward to continuing to work on these articles in collaboration with everyone in the future and appreciate the help and advice you provide for the effort. Cla68 03:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Thanks for the note. I've noticed that you've been busy assessing again. Please check your e-mail. — ERcheck (talk) 11:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Khe Sanh

I noticed that you changed the name of the commanding general, 3rd MarDiv to Ray Davis (as opposed to Rath Tompkins). Was it indeed Davis that made the quote that you are attributing to him? Thompkins was the div commander until 21 May 1968, when Davis replaced him. The source attributed the quote to Thompkins. If it was Davis, why didn't you attribute it instead of leaving it linked to an incorrect source? RM Gillespie 18:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thanksgiving

Hi Looper5920. Happy Thanksgiving to you (and to your family)! I hope that you are finding many things to be thankful for. I'm sending you an e-mail in a few minutes. Hope you have time to read it. — ERcheck (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]