User talk:ScreaminEagle

This user may have left Wikipedia. ScreaminEagle has not edited Wikipedia since 25 November 2013. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome!

Hello, ScreaminEagle, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Karmafist 18:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for the invite to WikiProject Military history! Most definitely interested in helping out where and when I can. I saw how badly the USS Simpson article was mangled, and decided to be bold. Looks like the person making the edits is unwilling or unable to play well with others.

Anyway, let me know if I can be of service in a particular area... I'm not the most experienced Wikipedian, but I will try!

BTW I'm a huge MSTie as well...

Supersquid 15:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put the article back to where I had it. Spent days working on it, only to it destroyed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.204.215.147 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, how can we help you? You can ask your question here and place to the {{helpme}} template at the end so we know to check back.--Commander Keane 21:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble figuring out a infobox I'm trying to make for one of my articles. I want to include an overall title (bold) on top of the subcategories (also bold), but my title keeps sticking to the left side and creating two extra empty boxes on its right that I don't want. Plus, why is it attaching to the end of the article when I want it within a particular category?

Also, how do I keep border=4 while also making the title and/or subtitles grey? I tried looking for the answers in help, but it's a tad overwhelming. Thanks much for your help. ScreaminEagle 21:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, it would really help if you can give us the example you are working on. In an infobox, heading (eg = = ='s) are not used. Instead you just make the text bold and larger, as done in Template:Infobox Film.--Commander Keane 22:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe it's not an infobox if that's what it has to look like. I'm working with the something-box pictured at the bottom here.

Commanding Officers of the JFHQ-NCR

Commander	Deputy Commander	Dates
Maj. Gen. Guy C. Swan III	Rear Adm. Terence E. McKnight	2005 - Present
Maj. Gen. Galen B. Jackman	Rear Adm. Jan Cody Gaudio	2004 - 2005

I want it in the middle of the article under "Organization (of the Agency)," not at the end of the article (where it's migrated for some reason) because it will appear somewhat random. Also, I'm trying to specify the box as "Commanding Officers of the JFHQ-NCR" since I will be going into detail about different aspects of the organization of the agency in relation to other agencies, etc., as well. Also, can I make the title and subtitles grey or should I just leave them be? ScreaminEagle 22:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's just a table (Help:Table). It has been migrating to the bottom of the page because it needs to have |} at the end. I have added that on your example above. Also, which article is this for? When I know the article I will take another look. I'm still a little unclear on what the grey heading questions was about.--Commander Keane 22:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the above example above, to simplify it a bit. There are lots of different ways to do tables, so use whatever way you like.--Commander Keane 22:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A-ha, that makes more sense. The article in question is Joint Force Headquarters National Capital Region. It's still in its infancy obviously, and I'm trying to finish one section at a time.

As for grey heading, I wanted the boxes that say "Commander," "Deputy Commander," and "Dates" to be a different color (preferrably grey) than the entries below them (or is that overkill with the bold, too?).

(new edit) Also, I like that everything was centered before--looks a little odd to me now, or at least the dates do. Thanks for the new example, though. ScreaminEagle 22:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've made some changes. You can choose any color from List of colors, and adjust the table in lots of different ways.--Commander Keane 23:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I'll stick with I think. Thank you for all your assistance! ScreaminEagle 23:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commanding Officers of the JFHQ-NCR

Commander	Deputy Commander	Dates
Maj. Gen. Guy C. Swan III, USA	Rear Adm. Terence E. McKnight, USN	2005 - Present
Maj. Gen. Galen B. Jackman, USA	Rear Adm. Jan Cody Gaudio, USN	2004 - 2005

Hi there, You've been changing the category sorting of several articles, but you don't consider that some people have 2 last names. For instance, Sergio Galván Rey and Guillermo Barros Schelotto were correctly sorted as Galvan Rey, Sergio and Barros Schelotto, Guillermo, but you changed that sorting to their second last name (Rey and Schelotto). Since they make use of both last names, and the first one is the father's lastname (that's the costum in Spanish speaking countries), everyone would go to search them at the letter of their first last name. I'm reverting your changes in this two articles, and any other in my whatchlist. Good wiking, Mariano(t/c) 10:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what happened-- the change I made certainly doesn't match my edit summary. I have put it back the way it was. Sorry about that! -- Mwanner | Talk 22:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "That's strange that it would do that." I've seen other weird stuff happen once in a while, but it's also completely possible that I screwed up somehow. I had spent a lot of time reverting vandalism and spam using multiple sessions, and it can get you crazy when it comes in too fast. Either way, alls well that ends... -- Mwanner | Talk 02:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I figured it out-- it was me. I was reverting spam by User:24.185.9.190, checking all his edits, and I hit an edit he'd made to Army Combat Uniform where he added a wikilink to Galaxy Army Navy Store, which I knew had been deleted. What I should have done at that point is go to the current version of the article and edit out the Galaxy link. Instead, I just called up the edit before his and reverted to it, thus blowing away all later edits, including yours-- case closed, my bad. So, sorry, I guess I need to be more careful. Anyway, at least it makes sense. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 02:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's got a "History" section in the article, doesn't it? ;-)

More generally, we tend to wind up dealing with anything that's even vaguely military-related, since there's really nobody else working in this area. Kirill Lokshin 20:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per the Pershing Rifles page, I am wondering why you delinked the years. I was under the impression that we were to link years just as we link to other articles. This, because the year in which something happened, put in the context of other events that happened the same year or date in history, gives the reader a better idea of what was going on in the world at the same time of the event in question.

Also, you changed "the Ohio State group" to "the Ohio group." The group spoken of is not just from the State of Ohio, but rather Ohio State University (mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph). To avoid confusion, I'm going to change that back with clarification added. Thanks. ScreaminEagle 20:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I delinked standalone years as (as best I can tell) there's been a quasi-consensus that years only should be linked if there's a day and month to go along with it. For a MUCH more in-depth discussion of that particular debate, wander over to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).

As for the Ohio edit, I just made an arbitary decision as to which way to go with that. Therefore, I assure you that my feelings aren't horribly hurt if you've changed and clarified it. :-) – Swid ^{(talk | edits)} 20:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox should be for the more prominent/notable awards - you don't need to relist everything in the article. As far as the list of awards, there is really no set policy. Common sense should prevail. My personal opinion is that marksmanship badges should be left off (everyone in the army and marines has one), as well as AAMs and ARCOMS. MSMs are debatable - it's still a fairly low level awards, at least in terms of what most notable military people will have. I think all valor awards are worthy of inclusion. Unit citations I think are pointless for listing for individuals, but for ships and units are fine. And badges in general are all fairly important enough to list (except for Air Force occupation badges - like marksmanship badges in the army, in the air force pretty much everyone has one, if I'm not mistaken). Once again, though, this is my own opinion, and what guides me when listing awards. Others on the military history task force might feel differently.--Nobunaga24 02:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The June 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. Kirill Lokshin 05:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. We've been trying various wordings for the importance levels over the past few days, so I wasn't sure if this was some difference of interpretation that was cropping up ;-) Kirill Lokshin 23:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping at once. Please copyedit :) Thanks! -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for the great copyedit!!! :)

Some more people will certainly review it, but I guess the article is moving in the right direction.

Btw, if you could support it at the FAC, it would be great too... :)

Thanks again, -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right, it's that. Thanks again! -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ScreamingEagle, I always try to assume good faith. The majority of the time, when I see a redlink on a date page, I revert it using Vandalproof if and only if it appears to be nonsense (i.e. 1989 - Ashley, the queen of the world and that type of stuff). These are the only cases when I leave any sort of warning (t1, unless they have recently vandalized or repeatedly vandalized that page or another Wikicalendar page) on the user's talk page. If the user keeps adding the same entry, I clarify on their talk page that all entries must have Wikipages, and that to have a Wikipage a person must be notable by Wikipedia's definition, etc. If the edit is a no-link, I search for that name or simple variations it, and I revert it, usually manually, if I cannot find it. If the edit is a redlink but does not seem like a vanity/silly edit, I manually remove it and may note on the user's talk page (if it was the most recent edit to the page) that he or she might want to create a page for that person if the person meets notability requirements and then add the person's name to the page. Over the last few months, I have reverted hundreds, if not thousands, of additions to date pages, as I am actively involved in the Wikicalendar project, so it's inevitable that sometimes I mess up. I will look at the edit you noted and see if further action on my part needs to be taken. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Fabricationary 21:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For helping me with the copyedit of Aleksandr Vasilevsky, this RAK Star for you! :) Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The July 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.

Ah, don't worry about it; I'm not the least bit offended. You're probably right as far as the placement is concerned. (The reason I wasn't sure is because words-as-words can also be italicized, in which case there wouldn't be any quote marks to deal with; I was wondering if there might be some exception to the general rule related to that.) In any case, I've usually found that it's easier to simply reword the offending text rather than worrying about these things. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 05:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean to move the code directly onto your user page? All you have to do is write "subst" at the beginning of the userboxes you want to save. So, for instance, for {{User USA}}, go in and write {{subst:User USA}}. When you save the page, it will put the code directly onto your user page. If you have a lot of userboxes, the easiest way to do it is to copy the contents of your user page into a textpad, do a search for "{{" and replace it with "{{subst:". Hope that helps, JDoorjam Talk 22:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are taking on David Jason Silver, amateur wrestler extrordinaire, super-duper Balkan War veteran (who never left his ship while monitoring a peace treaty, so how he is a veteran of a land war I have no idea). Be prepared for tons of frustration - he is absolutely oblivious to any suggestion you make to him. He is living in a fantasy world where his naval service (2 years apparently) was the most important thing that ever happened in the history of the United States Navy. He has made a mess of articles by not ever using the preview button - he literally (I counted) had over 100 edits in a row on the USS Simpson article. Every time he changes the location of a comma, he hits "save page." He has made a mess of every article he has touched. For a good laugh, visit his "blog" [1]. I honestly (and this is not a personal attack) think he has mental issues.--Nobunaga24 23:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He got himself banned yesterday after vandalizing my user page about 3 times. But Only for 24 hours (ToT)--Nobunaga24 22:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate your thoughts here. --uriah923^(talk) 22:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Sorry to abuse your kindness, but can you please take a few minutes to copyedit the Battle of Moscow article??? According to Kirill's review, there are grammar problems but no significant style problems, so it can't be as bad as the previous nom... :) Since you helped me with Aleksandr Vasilevsky, I thought I could beg for some more help :P

Thanks in advance,

Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, and thanks for your copyedit!!! And really there is no problems with inline comments. Indeed, those were very helpful to me :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read Eastern Front (World War II) and it will answer some of your questions. The axis that attacked the Soviets were the germans the italians the hungarians, the romanians and many volunteers from several european countries in different waffen ss divisions. Ironplay 03:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not sure what the best thing would be. For major positions, using succession boxes directly on the articles might be worthwhile. There's nothing wrong with long lists, though, provided the topic warrants them; see, for example, List of Doges of Venice. Kirill Lokshin 17:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doing both might work. The only drawback would be that if it turned out the list wasn't useful after the fact, you'll have wasted the time it took to create it, so whether you want to do that is a choice you're in a better position to make. Kirill Lokshin 18:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 - 12:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious as an old nam vet, whether or not your handle means you served with the 101rst. My son is with them now in Bagdad. Take care, old windy bear 22:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you said it best - "What the...?" Not sure what that means. As they say here, zen zen wakarimasen...--Nobunaga24 01:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever visit Arizona be happy to show you around. You are my number #1 Fan. Doing a great job on the project, I will take note to that. Cheers and have a great day!!!!

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 -- 12:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 - 20:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I messed the description up. I changed it to a left-to-right order. Thanks for pointing it out! :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problems here. I can see the pic.--Nobunaga24 23:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 22:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for the note. It did look like a star; with your note, that makes 4 out of 4 who see it as a star. I feel comfortable that there is a second award; it would be nice to be able to find out when and for what actions he received the second Silver Star. — ERcheck (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for finding that! :-) Kirill Lokshin 16:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. I do not mind people intruding in my sandbox to fix dead links and correct my gawd-awful spelling grammar. The disclamer at the top is more to warn people that I do not want them conducting any large scale edits that would otherwise compromise the material on the page. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reference was to the 3rd Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard). Today the battalion would be referred to as "2-3 Infantry Battalion", but during the CARS era it was referred to as the "2nd of the 3rd Inf" or just plain "two-three". It's only a presumption, but the Army possibly wanted a campaign streamer for the regiment for that conflict--as you can tell, there was no rhyme, reason, or tradition in assigning manuever battalions to the separate brigades constituted for Vietnam. I know it's popular nowadays to call an infantry division "the 3rd Infantry" but the word "infantry" has always referred to regiment and never division. (I'm old-fashioned in that regard, I guess, because to me an infantry division does not need that adjective--it's the "3rd Division"). Anyway, it was the regiment. Thanx for asking. --Buckboard 07:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The November 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 23:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks Screaming for your assistance with this article. Grammar and spelling are my weaknesses... so I really appreciate your proofreading the article.Balloonman 20:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the Fort Campbell webpage, click on the Division tab towards the top, then look around on the left side of the screen for the "Commanding General" link. Click on that and the website will first take you the Thomas R. Turner II page, but then suddenly redirects to a new one with Schloesser's biography and such, stating him as CG. The URL is still listed for Turner, but it's Schloesser. Besides, I know the Schloessers.--SOCL 02:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's the CG webpage. It still says Thomas R. Turner II, but the material is on General Schloesser: Commanding General, 101st Airborne Division

I am in total agreement with keeping the picture and Ryan, General Schloesser, and Colonel Schloesser in the article--indeed, it serves its importance in historical terms. I also agree with making an infobox with General Schloesser's picture for his biographical article. Sadly, I'm not very good at Wikipedia editing and such...well, at least, I normally take guesses at what I'm doing based on other articles until I get it to look right, or someone else comes along and fixes it. And thanks for the Change of Command newspaper article! I had been looking for it, but couldn't find it anywhere!--SOCL 19:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about the rant. The same thing with the picture happened to me, but I managed to crop the picture out and fix it up so that now it's good--check the article: I added the infobox with picture. Let me know what you think. I also updated the 101st article. Do you think it would be pertinent to place the Change of Command photo in the 101st article? Perhaps in the subsection of the commanders, just as one example of the numerous changes of command at Fort Campbell. In any event, I couldn't tell you about most of his combat and other experiences, mostly due to the nature of the matters. That's not to say I don't know, but I'm really not at liberty to talk about much of it since...well, it's the nature of working with the SOAR...--SOCL 20:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added the 2006 Change of Command image from The Leaf Chronicle to the 101st article. Thanks for the help!--SOCL 21:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that in Commonwealth English the periods go outside of the quotation marks? Not relevant to this particular article (Military Brat), which should be and is written in American English, but it may not be a hard and fast rule for other than American English--and it can be problematic when editors partially correct an article that has been written in one dialect. This article does need some good copyedit work, though. KP Botany 21:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is part Commonwealth/part American English, please take the time to make certain the article conforms entirely to American English--I'd like this article to be really good. I did not notice that, but am also doing a major comment/edit on the Sei Whale article which is written in Commonwealth English. KP Botany 21:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought you were saying it was a mix of both with this comment, "and given that this article had a mixture of both," on my talk page. I was horrified that I didn't catch that. Yeah, yeah, the major author missed quite a few grammatical niceties, but put together a much better article, in spite of that, than a lot of the FAC I've read lately. Any day give me someone who put the effort into the content, readability, and logical flow, and missed some grammar points that others can clean up. KP Botany 21:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't help but comment here... this kind of made my day ;-) And since my mastery over the English gramer an spellin isn't that great (despite being my native tongue) I appreciate the effort that BOTH of you are putting into this article to get it over that final hump.Balloonman 22:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screamin, do you live in CO right now? If so, what part? I'm in Denver in the Park Hill neighborhood (I-70 and CO.)Balloonman 22:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So Screamin, what did you think of the new section on research and the acceptance of the term brat?Balloonman 23:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loved it. Loved, loved it. Great job. Again, didn't think there'd be enough to make a whole section out of that, but you did it, and good job! It explains a lot and it was very much needed I think.

Hey, have you ever seen the Denver City and County Building lit up at Christmas? If not, go see it. And then take a picture of it for me. ;) --ScreaminEagle 00:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to remember next week... I work in LoDo...Balloonman 01:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey There Screamin, I just finished my major revisions on the article... significantly more coverage of the Post-Cold War Brat... and I think a little better organized. I was hoping that you could take a look at it and let me know what you think? I know the intro needs to be expanded, but that was going to be my last thing...Balloonman 08:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found a couple of things that you can adjust on your next edit (since you edit it frequently enough).

• "because truly random samples on adult brats is impossible." Perhaps explain why the logistics of a truly random sample are difficult to achieve?
• "Non-military personnel may find the term “brat” insulting, and not may understand...." Switch "not" and "may"
  • This is a comment that I don't follow, the others make sense... but I don't see what you are recommending here.

Balloonman 16:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I meant it should read "Non-military personnel may find the term “brat” insulting, and may not understand...."
      • It's times like these where I wish I could say I was dyslexic... I read that section numerous times in the article itself... I read it here as you wrote it... and I couldn't see what was wrong with it. I continually read it as "may not" despite it actually saying "not may." WowBalloonman 21:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "Military culture has its own norms and expectations, which are so different that military brats can find civilians very different and often incomprehensible." It seems like that's one too many "differents" in a sentence, and also kinda redundant, actually. First it says they're so different (different from whom? Civilians) and then it again says the brats find civilians different. You see what I'm getting at.
• "Yet, the one constant where they find comfort is the order and regiment of military life." I think it should be "the one constant in which they find...." Military life is a thing, not a location. Also, the statement suggests they find comfort in nothing else. Is this true?
• "Even though the faces and geography have changed, the "base" remained recognizable because the rituals are consistent." Everything in the sentences leading up to that have been in present tense, then it switches to past tense there. I would say, "Even though the faces and geography change, the "base" remains recognizable, etc."
• Either define "Retreat" (as part of lowering the flag) in the article or link to it within Wikipedia--non-military aren't going to know right off what that is.
• "The Pledge of Allegiance will be recited every morning and patriotic/militaristic songs may be sung at military schools. " Switching tenses again (present to future). I would say "the PofA is recited every morning and ... songs may be sung...etc." Either the PofA is currently recited each morning, or it isn't. Predicting the future and stating it as fact isn't always a good idea.
• "Prior to movies at the base theater's, everybody stands for the national anthem and often another patriotic songs such as "God Bless the USA"." A wording preference. I would think it would sound better if you replaced "everybody stands" with "patrons and staff stand." Also, Switch "another" with "other."
• "Disciplinary expectations, however, extends beyond the military family." Should be "extend" not "extends."
• "...authoritarian, democratic, and mixed, inconsistent way." "And a mixed, inconsistent way?" I'm wary of correcting direct quotes, but you should double-check that since it sounds wrong.
• "For example, on base housing for officers will be significantly nicer...." "Nicer" sounds less professional. Of a higher quality? Something like that. Also, is there supposed to be a hyphen between on and base?
• "Senior officers housing may be slightly larger and nicer than their lower ranking counterparts." Again with the "nicer." Also, either put an apostrophe after the 's' in officers, or say Senior officer housing.
• "On the largest bases, there might be a row of opulent houses referred to "Colonels' Row" or "Generals' Row."" Referred to as.
• "On the other end of the spectrum, are the enlisted quarters. Oftentimes enlisted personnel might be assigned apartments and only then if space was available." Take out the comma in the first sentence. Second sentence, "only then if space is available" to match to present tense.
• "The Officer Clubs are nicer than the Enlisted Clubs. Officers may even have nicer recreational facilities than their enlisted counterparts, such as a nicer swimming pool or recreation halls. Historically, base chapels and movie theaters would have designated seating for officers and their families." Nicer, nicer, nicer. Time to dig your thesaurus out!
• "Some bases even had two Boy Scout and two Girl Scout troops — one for officer children and one for enlisted children." When? It's in the past tense, so say, even something like "at one time" but I doubt people would go for that. Aim for a time period. Also, is there evidence stating brats are more likely to be involved in Scouting? Just curious.
  • I haven't seen any, I'll ask Rlevse because I personally believe that to be a true statement... might have something. As for timing, I know it happened as recently as the the 60's and perhaps 70's, but I don't really know.Balloonman 16:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, then I would say "For at least the first half of the 20th Century and possibly as recently as the 1970s, some bases even had two Boy Scout and two Girl Scout troops...." And I asked about scouting because my brothers and my husband (all brats) were heavily into scouting, encouraged by our AD fathers (mine was Scout Master even). So I'm guessing it would make sense, too, given the order and such. --ScreaminEagle 16:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "Wertsch describes how children of enlisted personnel perceived their officer counterparts to receive specialized treatment." Worded a little awkwardly. I'll have to think more on how to make it simpler. Or you can.
• "The children of officers socialized with other officers' children. The children of enlisted personnel socialized with those of other enlisted personnel. Even if an officer brat and an enlisted brat became friends at school, this friendship rarely carried over to the home life. The physical separation and differences between available activities made it very difficult." This is all said in past tense as if it happened in the past, but it doesn't happen now. Is that the case?
• "This separation is by design. According to the U.S. Code of Military Justice, it can be illegal for an officer to become fraternize" Take out "become"
• "...it could be akward to have friends whose parent worked together." Awkward is misspelled. Also, the wording needs to be better. "It could be awkward to have two friends whose parents worked together..."
  • Yeah, this was a sentence that I struggled with...Balloonman 16:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "Military brats often develop a sense that allows them distinguish the rank of another child's father." I've often found this to be a little funny. They develop a sixth sense or something? I would think they would just have to ask or look at the uniform. I'm assuming you mean that they develop a sense of the necessity to distinguish the ranks or something like that rather than some supernatural power that tells them the ranks of people they've never met.
• "...rivalries don't just end at the end of the branch of service, each branch of the service has its own...." That comma should be a semicolon to avoid a run-on sentence.
• "where it was actually against military law to make a racist remark or not intervene when someone else does." Switching tenses, mid-sentence. "...when someone else did."
• "With strict guidelines based upon the rank in the military member" Rank of the military member.
• "smaller than the off base community" Again, should off and base have a hyphen?
• I copyedited a whole section because there was too much to put here. See if you agree with the changes.
• "Two of the common themes in Wertsch's book were abuse and alcholism." They still are those themes, so change were to are.
• 1980's and 1990's should be 1980s and 1990s.
• " The impact on the military's efforts remains inconclusive. Some studies report higher rates of abuse in military families others report lower rates." The impact of the military's efforts. And stick a dash or a comma + "while" between military families and others to avoid a run-on.
• "serving in the armed forces, this opens up the possibility of both parents being deployed at the same time...." Run-on. replace comma with semicolon, or add another connecting word after the comma such as "and" or "as"
• "Military members can be deployed for days, months, even years without their family." "Or even," or "and even."
• "With the increased demands on the U.S. military, many reservist..." reservist should be plural.
• Death in Combat "agressive" is misspelled. Two Gs.
• "Because they identify so strongly with other brats, they are curious about famous brats and the depiction of military brats in fiction." I know it sounds repetetive, but the second "they" should also be "brats" to make it clear that it is the brats who are curious and not, I don't know, researchers or something silly. English is funny that way.
• "Brats have more in common with each other than they do with non-brats." I would say they "often" do, not that they absolutely do.
• "Others join brat groups because they feel disconnected from civilian culture or want to be able to share their story with other brats who can appreciate their story" How about "want to be able to share their story with other brats who can identify with it."? "Their story" twice sounds funny.
• Also, I finally figured out what makes it sound so much like a research paper: all the direct quotes. A few quotes here and there are good to stress a point I think and to mix it up, but continually quoting these authors makes it look like the article can't speak for itself. Referencing them is one thing, but the quotes make it seem like the whole article may be just one big paraphrase. I might look for quotes that could be edited out or paraphrased. If the sentences around the quote basically say the same thing as the quote, then take it out--there's no real need for it (the citation to it will do just fine).

Oh yeah, and an excellent job on all the new information! --ScreaminEagle 14:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome... I'll take a closer look at these later and try to incorporate them... thanks Balloonman 15:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made just about all of these edits... including getting rid of most quotes. I left a few in where I felt that it was important to cite the original speaker/document, but got rid of 2/3rds of them.

I appreciate you squaring me away on some of the things that should have been brought to my attention ScreaminEagle, however, what authority or prescedence does the WikiProject Military history have over other users (if any)? It is more presentable in an easy format to list the decorations and badges versus paragraph format. Even the Army uses this format on Department of the Army General Officer Management Office (DA GOMO) http://dagomo.us.army.mil/ --Signaleer 20:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we’re going to go down that road, what authority does the Department of the Army have over Wikipedia? If this were the Army’s website, then I could see the logic of using their preferences--but it's not. (Incidentally, most of the US commander biographies I’ve seen have used the paragraph-style awards and decorations section rather than the list-style: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], just to show a few varied examples.)

The purpose of the Military History project is to make military articles the best they can possibly be, and one way it accomplishes that is by trying to create easy-to-follow guidelines to help all of us editors write articles so that not only are they full of every bit of information that someone could want, but also in similar formats to create a sense of consistency and order (it should be noted that consistency and order should never come at the cost of accuracy, as it did in one recent instance, but this does not apply here). No, the project isn’t the end-all-be-all of the universe, but it does serve a purpose. By working as a cohesive and cooperative group, we get a lot more accomplished than we would by bickering and fighting against one another’s personal preferences and opinions—it’s the reason this project is one of the most efficient—and respected—projects on the site. Remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not just a dumping ground for random information. I don’t think I’ve ever come across an encyclopedia that relies on lists when it could write it out instead, and that’s what makes an article here truly good—being informative, accurate, and encyclopedic. Naturally, there are times when only a list will do because otherwise it would cause mass confusion. I don’t believe that to be the case here, especially when the Army has already demonstrated that writing out a person’s accomplishments is not only possible, but desirable in some circles.--ScreaminEagle 22:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The December 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 23:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ScreaminEagle, You modified the name of my page 517th Parachute Regimental Combat Team by adding "(United States)" as a disabiguator. You note that this is consistent with the new military naming conventions. But I looked at the conventions which you reference above and I do not see anything that specifies a country designation in this format. Many existing links use a "U.S." at the begining of the entry, especially with Armies and Divisions, where there may be multiples. But in this case, there is no disambiguation needed. There is one and only one 517th PRCT. I find the new format unneccesary. Furthermore, if you search for "parachute infantry regiment", you will find a dozen listings, none of which use this new naming convemtion, and it is necessary for none of them. Can I remove the change?

Rbarrett3776 00:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see:

Regarding the 517th: the guidelines don't require a disambiguator, even on numerical designations; indeed, disambiguators are unnecessary "where the name is clearly unique", and should only be preemptively disambiguated when the name "can reasonably be expected to be used by multiple armed forces". So if it's clear that the name of the 517th is unique (and I wouldn't be surprised, given how long it is and how high the number goes), there's no problem with removing the disambiguator.

Regarding the double parentheses: assuming that that is, in fact, the unit's real name (and hence we can't get away with using either "#th Infantry Regiment" or "#th Airborne Infantry Regiment"), there are two options:

• Consider whether this arrangement makes the name sufficiently unique that we can dispense with a disambiguator.
• Just use "(Airborne) (United States)"; it's admittedly clunky, but there's not much else that can be done.

Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 20:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srceamin (and Krill), Thanks for the clarification, specifically with the 517th. I'm OK either way, but if the disambiguation is not necessary, then I vote to keep it simple. Note: I am not a fan of the "U.S." in front, since I have seen places with "U.S.", "US", or "United States". Let's hope that you guys thinking about the standards do get around to straightening out them all eventually, since it does make it a pain for those of us trying to keep our own links straight. Rbarrett3776 03:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, somebody beat me to the category of military brat, but I went through last night and updated all of the brats on the List of famous military brats to have the category on their page. Well, the category has already been nominated for deletion. The reasoning is because it is a "non-neutral" term and parental occupation is irrelevant. Thus, I'm letting people who have contributed to the Military brat article know so that they can support the category. Here is the link to the discussion [9] Balloonman 20:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help in resolving the M11 dispute on the U.S. Army page. The controversy seems to have died down ... for now. I appreciate the help. Mike f 01:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's a Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page, which is a very thorough reference on the topic. I prefer to just cut and paste to create an archive, as the page history will be preserved on the original talk page. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, looking at the Tomb of the Unknowns page I notice a revert about the uniform and preparation time for the uniform. Being an officer I am not aware of the dress blues being made from wool, I have never owned a set that were and have never seen any that are, even on the Tomb Sentries. Also on the 8 hour prep time for uniform. I have led soldiers who were Tomb Sentries and work with personnel who were on cassions. They have debunked the 8 hour uniform prep as myth started by an email that has been forwarded more than a few time. Where exactly is this info coming from? I would like to see it for myself for future reference. I am just a little skeptical of some issues on this site sometimes due to the fact that I have done some cleanup on awards and entries on bios only to have it reverted as "origional research" even though the change I made came verbatim from Army manuals and pubs. --User:Bluecord

This is why I also provided a lengthy explanation for my revert on the talk page of the very same article, complete with references. I wouldn't think the home page of the tomb guards themselves would lie about such things, especially since the whole point of their FAQ is to debunk those many and various urban legends that have been circulating throughout the internet. If you care to write to the current webmaster who is guaranteed to be a former sentinel and ask him yourself about these two issues and why they have not yet proved them to be false, then please do so. I will do the same if you like. Until then, I'll believe what they have published. --ScreaminEagle 00:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

An update: the webmaster of the Tomb Sentinels website responded speedily to my request for clarification on these two matters. He responded as follows:

"Our website is correct. The dress blues are "winter weight" uniforms made for the Sentinels. They are 100% wool so they hold a press longer and look better. There is no such thing as a "summer" uniform at the Tomb. And the Sentinels spend 8-10 hours preparing those uniforms for their shift, PLUS most of their time between walking the mat to continue to work on their uniforms.

"If your "friend" has any issues with his apparent "mis-information" or if he simply refuses to admit that he is absolutely, positively WRONG on this subject, he is more than welcome to contact either myself or any other Sentinel. Unless he (or his friends who served "in the caissons") served as a Sentinel, he has no clue. Only those of us who have walked the mat and worn the Tomb Guard Badge understand. A caisson blues vs those of a Sentinel - please...

"Feel free to forward this to him or have him write to me himself. I will be more than happy to direct him the Commander of the Tomb, The Sergeant of the Guard, any of the current Sentinels, the Commander of the 3rd US Infantry Regiment (the parent unit of the Sentinels), the Commanding General of the Military District of Washington (the parent unit of the 3rd US Infantry) or the Department of the Army. All of these individuals/organizations have reviewed our website and have approved its content."

I hope this clears up the confusion about the veracity of the information on the website. Thanks for contacting me about this. --ScreaminEagle 02:55, 28 February

2007 (UTC)

Cool. I had never been to that website until today. There is so much crap floating around the internet, it is hard sometimes to split fact from fiction.

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

Delivered by grafikbot 16:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I see you have recently been quite active in moving military pages to the "correct title". Unfortuantely, I think you have been "cutting and pasting" from one title to another, which has the effect of separating the text from the edit history showing who wrote it, which is a condition of the GFDL licence. It is possible to move one page over an old pages, but it requires admin assistance to preserve the edit histories (either to swap the pages around, or to delete and then undelete the target).

You can ask for assistance at WP:RM. It may be worth posting a list of the pages that need moving there, or to the WikiProject MILHIST talk page. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant the occasions where you did not use the "move" button. If you are not an admin, you can only use the "move" button to move articles to a redlinked title (i.e. one that has not been used before) or over an existing redirect (so long as the only edit history of the target article is the creation of the redirect). If you can't "move" an article to the new title, the article under the target title must have had a more substantial edit history. Those are the cases where you will need admin assistance.

My apologies if I painted the problem larger than it actually is, and thanks for straightening out the titles. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're fixed now, incidentally. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

You've been very helpful. I think I found some other goodies at http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/G-1_(DCSPER)_1.html that appear to be all unclassified, at least the ones I am interested in. I'll be passing this on to the sarge as well. As army regs, these downloadable PDFs are authoritative and up to date from the most reliable source, Uncle Sam hisself. I may also make some correction to the JROTC article as well (the most opinionated people seem to wither away in the sight of reliable sources!) Hotfeba 03:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added the first of my cite book template style book citations as a new "Partial Bibliography" section at the end of the miltary side of the Standing Operating Procedure article. I may get flagged for the particular way I'm using that template, but at least I tried to offer a legitimate source. When I can look up from others' legal problems and return to my wikihobby, I will continue to download the unclassified AR PDFs and use them as book cites on other military articles as well. Hotfeba 19:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, S.E. --

I'm opting out of the "discussion" about military brats because it seems to me one contributor isn't all that open to different interpretations of reality. I'm stopping here to mention my theory (sorry, no citations available) that traffic might stop for retreat in the general area of the "official" post flag (if there is such a thing), but that's not the same as the whole place coming to a halt. I like to think I got on well with the military folks connected to DAU (where I was working), and I'm sure at least one of them would have said something if I were out of line. With your broader experience, does a somewhere-near-the-actual-flag theory hold water / stand up to inspection / [insert analogy here] ? Just curious. — OtherDave 22:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the follow-up. Belvoir probably is an exception, and maybe the only one, though there are a hell of a lot of bases / posts / stations / what-have-you. I wasn't trying to get into a debate with you-know-who; the overall tone of the article (when I read and commented) just seemed awfully... orthodox. It happens everywhere, though. I've run into any number of people who insist that the only way to spell MacDonald is with that capital D -- and continue to insist that after being reminded how Macdonald of Macdonald spells his name. (That doesn't mean you shouldn't use the capital D, of course, just that it seems pointless to insist on it.)

DC trivia for you: where could you find a memorial to FDR before the FDR Memorial opened? — OtherDave 23:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the FDR thing, though I didn't mean to make you do original research. I used to work near Capitol Hill, and so often passed the old FDR memorial. As for the new one, if they weren't going to listen to one of the three greatest presidents, that was the right way not to listen to him. State capital will have to wait; the FDR bit was only because of your knowledge of DC (I've lived in the area for nearly 30 years). — OtherDave 22:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The juxtaposition of AG and interrogation bothered me, not the thrust of the comment. In my mind AG is infamous for prisoner abuse, not interrogation abuse. I didn't mean to make a big issue out of it--if you feel comfortable with the linkage, go ahead and delete my cn. I admittedly am not conversant on the "torture issue", but it did seem a stretch as the appropriate example. I only came to the article for some background on Scharff, since he interrogated the subject of another article I was working on. Thanx for the discussion.--Buckboard 01:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

post script. You came off as perplexed, and that told me I was making too much of it. One of the better parts of being a wiki for me is learning that there are as many ways of doing something as there are people, and many just as right as my way. Learning keeps me young! Thanx again for a pleasant discourse and I'll be keeping an eye out for your work. Good stuff, even for a Rockies fan.:-) --Buckboard 04:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

According to what I was taught at interrogator school (and what is in the wikipedia article for the Abu Ghraib incident) the offending soldiers were MPs. "The abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib was in part the reason that on April 12, 2006, the United States Army activated the 201st Military Intelligence Battalion, the first of four joint interrogation battalions.[6]" The absence of qualified interrogators was considered by the army to be a contributing cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayonetblaha (talk • contribs) 19:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder on my talk page, I untagged his article. I had tagged that as current when things were breaking on CNN/MSNBC/etc as that is when the editing frenzy kicked off. I thought a bot would have come along and taken it off, but I guess not. Thanks for the reminder. — MrDolomite • Talk 17:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• PS That's a pretty impressive user page yourself. Thanks for serving. I'm sorry I missed visting Buffalo Bill's grave, I stopped at the Mother Cabrini Shrine in Golden and ran out of time before my flight. Still a breathtaking view, especially for us flatlanders from the Midwest. — MrDolomite • Talk 17:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Greetings. There is going to be a Washington DC Wikipedia meetup on next Saturday, July 21st at 5pm in DC. Since you are listed in Category:Wikipedians_in_Maryland, I thought I'd invite you to come. I'm sorry about the short notice for the meeting. Hopefully we'll do somewhat better in that regard next time. If you can't come but want to make sure that you are informed of future meetings be sure to list yourself under "but let me know about future events", and if you don't want to get any future direct notices \(like this one\), you can list yourself under "I'm not interested in attending any others either" on the DC meetup page.--Gmaxwell 00:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Wandalstouring 10:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, got kind of tired of the back and forth here. For every Silver Kid defeated, another takes his place. I also grew tired of the people with blatant agendas running amok, the lack of more restrictive editing policies (so that people can spend more time creating stuff instead of cleaning up after others), having to defend stuff that is obviously notable and challenging things that obviously aren't. I just want to get some of the 4 star articles done, then I'll probably disappear.--Nobunaga24 03:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Kirill 01:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This new wikiproject has been proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Brigham Young University. Please sign up in order to improve the quality of BYU related articles on wikipedia, including BYU-Idaho and BYU-Hawaii. Thanks. Wrad 01:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delivered by grafikbot 10:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

do you live in? just wondering as it didn't specify from reading your page.(ForeverDEAD 02:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for your support. It was much appreciated. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 16:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia, TabooTikiGod! I have noted that you made a good-faith edit with regard to the 3rd United States Infantry Regiment article. You moved this article to the title of 3rd Infantry Regiment (United States) per the renaming guidelines of the MILHISTWP. In most cases, this would have been just fine. However, the 3rd US Infantry is uniquely named: it's official name is the 3rd United States Infantry Regiment. "United States" is not a country designator in this case, it is actually part of the unit's official name. This dates back to the Civil War when units in America had to be distinguished between United States units or Confederate units. This particular unit has maintained the "United States" designator as part of its official title and removing that or switching it around results in an innaccuraely named U.S. unit. An administrator will change it back, so no further action is required on your part. I just wanted you to be aware that there are a few exceptions to the naming conventions that have been hashed out and rehashed out; this is just one of them. I appreciate your willingness to help the project, regardless. Keep up the good work and be sure and sign up for the MILHISTWP and a few of its task forces, if you're interested. --ScreaminEagle 17:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

My response to this argument (TabooTikiGod)

Thank you for your observations ScreaminEagle, however I would point out to you and other Wikipedians who have particular concern in reference to the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment's name. The name of a Wikipedia article versus an official title of a person, place, thing, idea, etc. may vary and do not necessarily coincide with one another. If that were the case, then none of the U.S. military units listed would have (United States) following the name of the article. For example, 1st Infantry Division (United States), 7th Cavalry Regiment (United States), 173rd Airborne Brigade (United States), III Corps (United States) and so forth. This is merely done for organizational purposes and therefore does not reflect the official title of the unit. This particular Regiment should not be any different nor treated as a special case than the rest of the U.S. Army units and organizations on Wikipedia. -TabooTikiGod 18:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To further support my reasoning of this issue, although The Old Guard's official website [10] has the title header as 3d United States Infantry Regiment, however, many of the articles within the official website describe the unit as 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard) [11]. Furthermore, the official unit's association The Old Guard Association [12] refers the unit as 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment. Additionally, the United States Center of Military History (USACMH) Lineage and Honors Information of the unit describes it simply as 3d Infantry [13] which is dated 22 May 1997 which is, I might add, is the U.S. Army's official military history resource which supercedes the unit's history which reflects the organization's official lineage. In conclusion, there are many different reliable and official resources which one can draw from and list as a resource and argue what the "official name" of the unit is. Even in trying to accomplish this task, there are many contradictions and misnomers for the unit known as The Old Guard. Again, I would reinforce the effort to rename the article as 3rd Infantry Regiment (United States) to rectify this situation. -TabooTikiGod 18:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the name of the article in good will and was not meant as a malicious act or meant to upset the Wikipedia community, particularly the members of the MILHISTWP. The act of changing the article was done with logic and reason which I have provided my thought process and showed concrete evidence to further explain and support my claim. -TabooTikiGod 19:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, not again! ;-)

But I think I'll let the discussion on WT:MILHIST play out for a bit before moving it back, so as not to risk devolving into a revert war on the thing. Kirill 20:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although it seems that someone else has moved it back anyways, making the point rather moot. Kirill 20:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, this is the last time we need to debate this. Arguments like these never cease to amaze me, you know? Ryecatcher773 16:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still there. The "clear" was just to add a break where the title of the "Dedication" section was hanging on the picture of the Changing of the Guard. I wasn't entirely sure where to place the new section so it's at the bottom. Feel free to tweak it. I imagine you're more acquainted with the subject than I am. I think I got the point across without being too wordy or going into unnecessary technical detail. →Wordbuilder 03:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I fixed the typos and will be watching for the info on the preservation organizations. That'll help tie things together (what led to the amendment from the plan to replace). →Wordbuilder 21:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/3rd US Infantry, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Daniel 05:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree to mediation, I only ask that you demand my mandatory joinder as a party, as I see the caller's (1) failure to include me and (2) failure to include my talk page CMH citation showing the 19th century use/approval of 3rd United States Infantry Regiment by the general in command of the Army at the time as forming the basis of any allegation against you of NPOV violation. If you agree to mediation but cannot effect my inclusion, then feel free to look up and use the CMH source I cited on the article talk page. Hotfeba 23:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I have put the shortest form of my position regarding the first point of mediation (the official name of the unit in question) at the end of my talk page, including related citations of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Style guide#Military units and formations. It's fairly short, it adheres to current MILHIST style, and it does not require changes to that style for agreement. Unless I am mistaken, this in combination with the citations from AR 600-82, AR 220-1, AR 220-5, and The Army of the United States (1896) are persuasive. Hotfeba 06:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/3rd US Infantry. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 00:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply