I wanted to let you know that I think I fixed all the issues with this article. I also added a good bit of content about the battle itself. -- Kumioko ( talk) 02:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Would you kindly consider taking a look at this page? It really needs better sourcing and a listing of all the subordinate units. Thought it might be the kind of thing you're interested in. Kind regards Buckshot06( prof) 06:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- I mean I can think of some sources to add to it, but I don't have a lot of time to enhance it to GA quality or anything, and most of the sources would be US Government. —
Ed!
(talk) 20:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Even setting up a 'Further Reading' to list extra sources would be good. Right now there is little on the command, as opposed to the CA career field. If you could add some extra USG sources (which effectively included globalsecurity.org) that would be helpful. I'm not aware of all the USG sources and you've canvassed them pretty thoroughly.
- On the 45th, thanks for your response; you need to include all the websites and the academic article in the 'Sources' and change the title to 'References;' and I'll do some looking at things and come back to you about other sources. I do not believe that there will be no sources describing the division's peacetime training period, though. The 38th Infantry Division was kind enough some years ago to post an entire annual training exercise scenario on their website, if nothing else...
Buckshot06(
prof) 21:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have a policy of not doing anything unless it is on the ACR page directly because users constantly post work they want me to do, then simply ignore me when I do what they want and ask them to change their vote. As to the division's periods of inactivity, the simple fact is you're not going to find a book that doccuments the division's mundane training or the periods where it is inactive and doing nothing. Even so, the 38th Infantry Division is a separate unit, with separate configuration and different training, schedules, and locations. No source on one national guard unit can be used to infer what another is doing, the national guard's formations are simply too varied to allow for that. — Ed! (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The
July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 19:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
File:Taco Johns Athens OH USA.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Taco Johns Athens OH USA.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Taco Johns Athens OH USA.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 20:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- File:Back Yard Burgers Hendersonville TN USA.JPG is now available as Commons:File:Back Yard Burgers Hendersonville TN USA.JPG. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 02:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- File:Marathon Station Red Lion OH USA.JPG is now available as Commons:File:Marathon Station Red Lion OH.JPG. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 20:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- File:1144 Transportation BN training.jpg is now available as Commons:File:1144 Transportation BN training.jpg. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 08:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- File:164 ADA BDE training.jpg is now available as Commons:File:164 ADA BDE training.jpg. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 09:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your reviews of Wars of the Delian League and Battle of the Eurymedon. You are absolutely right about the small number of reviewers for GA, which has evidently been smaller over the summer. I always review one article for each one that I nominate, but I could, should, and will try to do more. Anyway, I wanted you to know that your dilligent and selfless work does not go unappreciated, in token of which I award you:
|
The Reviewers Award | |
| For tirelessly reviewing Good Article Nominations. MinisterForBadTimes ( talk) 16:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC) |
I think I fixed all the problems you noted with this article. Could you take a look when you get a chance. -- Kumioko ( talk) 21:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
|
The Military history A-Class medal | |
| For excellent work on 7th Infantry Division (United States), 24th Infantry Division (United States) and I Corps (United States), all promoted to A-Class between July and August 2009. Roger Davies talk 18:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC) |
Just wanted to give you a heads up that I went through the 24th Infantry Division article and put a little review out there. Until I saw your user page, I didn't realize this was your first FAC. Nice work! JKBrooks85 ( talk) 10:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Because the maximum review period has now expired, I've closed the ACR for 45th Infantry Division (United States) as no consensus; the article has not been promoted this time. However, I'm pleased that I was able to promote I Corps (United States) to A-Class. Well done! EyeSerene talk 09:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,
Roger Davies
talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The
August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 19:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
173rd Airborne and Operation Crimp
The latter has been expanded so it might be useful in expanding the 173rd article YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 06:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Two issues Ed! Firstly, I've just taken a look at the 159th Inf Regt. It appears to be a copy-out of most of the 7th Inf Div article with most paragraphs not mentioning the regiment at all. I've deleted several of them, but if there's not separate info on the regiment, don't create the page until it becomes available - otherwise it just duplicates the other page. The other is more serious. I've just deleted the 36th Inf Bde page as a copyvio of the globalsecurity.org page on the unit. From the edit history, it appears that somebody pared the material down and removed the copyvio'd material, then you reinserted it soon afterwards. This may not be exactly what happened, but it's what the edit history shows. YOU MAY NOT COPY OUT OTHER ORGANISATIONS' WEBPAGES! Otherwise they will be deleted, as I've just finished doing with a bunch of globalsecurity copyvios from User:Bstockus. Do not do this. Buckshot06( prof) 09:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Understood. My mistake, I worked on that article before I had a more comprehensive understanding on what was and was not allowed on Wikipedia. — Ed! (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Congrats on achieving the GA for this article! You don't have any relationship to the 10th do you? If not, I'd like to pass along to their newsletter The Blizzard an announcement about this article's rating. -- llywrch ( talk) 15:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Nope, I am not in the 10th Mountain, so there's no problem there. Thanks! — Ed! (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Voting in the
Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,
Roger Davies
talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
All due respect, but including information about other brigades in the articles about 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th brigade is not in keeping with other articles on military units. If the reader wants to know about what the division is doing as a whole they should read the division page. We wouldn't include what the Corps headquarters was doing on the division page, even though your logic would apply there to. BCTs operate independantly, and they should be treated that way on Wikipedia too. JCO312 ( talk) 05:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- False. We don't include subordinate unit information on Corps pages because corps do not have permenantly assigned units, rather they are tactical headquarters which usually find divisions attached to them on a temporary basis. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Brigades of the 10th Mountain are different in that they will always remain units of the 10th Mountain division. The information of each brigade is pertinent on the other brigade's pages because they give an overall picture of what the division overall is doing, why brigades are being deployed as they are, and why one brigade isn't seeing deployment over several years, as they did in past years. It is important, in my mind, to show that the brigades are switching places in the theatres of operations because this is atypical of US Army doctrine; in the past the Army seems to have preferred to keep one unit in theatre for years at a time while simply switching personnel in and out of that command. Understanding that 10th Mountain Division brigades are in a constant state of deployment gives a more important overall sense that the division, on whole, is seeing continuous action, this is pertinent on both the division page and on the pages of the brigades, because these units may be independent, but they are the only mountain warfare units of the US Army, and they tend to take turns deploying in theater. The information about what each is doing is, in my mind one hundred percent essential in the articles of the related units. — Ed! (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the constant state of deployments is relevant for the Division page. But you're not talking about the division page, and this looks a lot like an attempt to fill the BCT pages with irrelevant information. 10th MTN Brigades are not "switching places with one another in theater." 3rd Brigade is currently in Afghanistan, and is being replaced by the 173rd. 1st Brigade redeployed last year, and was not replaced by another 10th MTN brigade. 2nd Brigade is heading out in a few months, and isn't replacing another 10th MTN unit. They don't even fall under the same headquarters when deployed. I don't disagree that the Division page should include information on where each Brigade is going, but the BCT pages are supposed to be about that BCT, and you can't provide any evidence that what 1st brigade does affects what 2nd brigade does, since they really are independent. Since all you're doing is copying/pasting, it looks very much like you're trying to fill the pages with text, which frankly isn't on point. JCO312 ( talk) 06:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've looked at this more trying to figure out a way to incorporate your information. At the very least, I think you have to separate out the history. When you have a section called "recent deployments" in a page about a particular brigade, the reader expects to see information about that brigades recent deployments. Except that half the information as presented is about other units. And a lot of this information remains wholly irrelevant, even under the argument you've put forward. The fact that division headquarters "participated in larger scale operations such as Operation Phantom Phoenix" has absolutley nothing to do with any of its brigades, as none of them were involved in any way. JCO312 ( talk) 06:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think that each and every unit under the command is affected when one of the units is deployed. Yes, the brigades are indepenant, but they are still in fact sister units. I think that the whole picture needs to be painted on each page as to what the division overall is doing. It explains the overall deployment scheme, giving the understanding that these brigades are all on different rotations, and what parts of the division are where and when. I understand your concern, that this information isn't always directly relavent to the direct history of the division, and if these were standard IBCTs I would be more inclined to agree, but I still feel that, as the only mountain warfare brigades in the Army, having information on all of them on all pages makes the articles that much better, particularly since they are all of the same division, and the culture and history around divisions is so strong. — Ed! (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
GA review on 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (United States) article.
Hi there,
I've done a GA review on the above article, and there are a few areas which need to be looked at before the article can be passed. Please view the talk page of 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (United States) article to see which areas need more work on. Regards, Pr3st0n ( talk) 22:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to have to tell you this, but it appears that you got the wrong building for your picture of the Yost Tavern. When I was at the site today, locals pointed me to a building on the other end of the block, which I've photographed here (you can see the street number over the door) and here; it's the same building as in the Ohio Historical Society's profile, here. Not trying to complain, but just asking: would you perhaps be willing to reupload your picture under a different name? Nyttend ( talk) 03:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- I see. I assume it would be better to just delete it, if it does not show anything of value. — Ed! (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
The
September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 23:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I figure that you are probably busy with other pages right now, but if you have time, I would really appreciate your help with these three pages when you can get to them - 92nd Infantry Division (United States), 761st Tank Battalion (United States) and 4th Armored Division (United States). Thank you. Dodgerblue777 ( talk) 21:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've been interested in working on Divisions right now, unfortunately for me to get to work on the 29nd Infantry and the 4th Armored, I need their basic lineage. The book Armies, Corps Divisions, and Separate Brigades by John Wilson has this info, unfortunately I don't have access to the book. Do you know of any lineage resources online I can access? — Ed! (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
http://www.history.army.mil/BOOKS/Lineage/M-F/index.htm http://www.history.army.mil/books/Lineage/in/infantry.htm
Sorry, I know it doesn't help too much, but that's the best I could find online. The entire book itself is not available online, I tried searching the Internet and the Army's website, but could not find it. Dodgerblue777 ( talk) 09:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I do not agree with you fully, and this is not vandalism - rather the Bold, Revert, Delete cycle, as he is adding content. WP:IDONTLIKEIT may be more what's going on. (See the earliest versions of Task Force 402 for another example like this.) Some of what he says is useful - some is insulting and needs to be toned down or removed. I do not believe this IP should be blocked. See what you think of my compromise wording at CJTF 82 and 189th Infantry Brigade. Best regards Buckshot06( prof) 22:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- He hasn't changed the compromise wording. If he does, inform me again. Cheers Buckshot06( prof) 21:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ed... I completed a GA review for Special Troops Battalion, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (United States) several days ago, and just wanted to drop you a note to make sure that you had seen it. You usually respond extremely quickly, so it's somewhat unusual that I haven't heard back from you yet :) Feel free to take you time, like I said, I just wanted to make sure you hadn't missed the review. Dana boomer ( talk) 14:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Hawaii Theological Seminary
An article that you have been involved in editing, Hawaii Theological Seminary, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawaii Theological Seminary. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ἀλήθεια 22:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.
If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up
here, read up on the rules
here, and discuss the contest
here!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 18:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know that I think I fixed all the issues with this article. I also added a good bit of content about the battle itself. -- Kumioko ( talk) 02:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Would you kindly consider taking a look at this page? It really needs better sourcing and a listing of all the subordinate units. Thought it might be the kind of thing you're interested in. Kind regards Buckshot06( prof) 06:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- I mean I can think of some sources to add to it, but I don't have a lot of time to enhance it to GA quality or anything, and most of the sources would be US Government. —
Ed!
(talk) 20:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Even setting up a 'Further Reading' to list extra sources would be good. Right now there is little on the command, as opposed to the CA career field. If you could add some extra USG sources (which effectively included globalsecurity.org) that would be helpful. I'm not aware of all the USG sources and you've canvassed them pretty thoroughly.
- On the 45th, thanks for your response; you need to include all the websites and the academic article in the 'Sources' and change the title to 'References;' and I'll do some looking at things and come back to you about other sources. I do not believe that there will be no sources describing the division's peacetime training period, though. The 38th Infantry Division was kind enough some years ago to post an entire annual training exercise scenario on their website, if nothing else...
Buckshot06(
prof) 21:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have a policy of not doing anything unless it is on the ACR page directly because users constantly post work they want me to do, then simply ignore me when I do what they want and ask them to change their vote. As to the division's periods of inactivity, the simple fact is you're not going to find a book that doccuments the division's mundane training or the periods where it is inactive and doing nothing. Even so, the 38th Infantry Division is a separate unit, with separate configuration and different training, schedules, and locations. No source on one national guard unit can be used to infer what another is doing, the national guard's formations are simply too varied to allow for that. — Ed! (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The
July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 19:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
File:Taco Johns Athens OH USA.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Taco Johns Athens OH USA.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Taco Johns Athens OH USA.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 20:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- File:Back Yard Burgers Hendersonville TN USA.JPG is now available as Commons:File:Back Yard Burgers Hendersonville TN USA.JPG. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 02:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- File:Marathon Station Red Lion OH USA.JPG is now available as Commons:File:Marathon Station Red Lion OH.JPG. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 20:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- File:1144 Transportation BN training.jpg is now available as Commons:File:1144 Transportation BN training.jpg. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 08:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- File:164 ADA BDE training.jpg is now available as Commons:File:164 ADA BDE training.jpg. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 09:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your reviews of Wars of the Delian League and Battle of the Eurymedon. You are absolutely right about the small number of reviewers for GA, which has evidently been smaller over the summer. I always review one article for each one that I nominate, but I could, should, and will try to do more. Anyway, I wanted you to know that your dilligent and selfless work does not go unappreciated, in token of which I award you:
|
|
The Reviewers Award | |
| For tirelessly reviewing Good Article Nominations. MinisterForBadTimes ( talk) 16:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC) |
I think I fixed all the problems you noted with this article. Could you take a look when you get a chance. -- Kumioko ( talk) 21:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
|
|
The Military history A-Class medal | |
| For excellent work on 7th Infantry Division (United States), 24th Infantry Division (United States) and I Corps (United States), all promoted to A-Class between July and August 2009. Roger Davies talk 18:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC) |
Just wanted to give you a heads up that I went through the 24th Infantry Division article and put a little review out there. Until I saw your user page, I didn't realize this was your first FAC. Nice work! JKBrooks85 ( talk) 10:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Because the maximum review period has now expired, I've closed the ACR for 45th Infantry Division (United States) as no consensus; the article has not been promoted this time. However, I'm pleased that I was able to promote I Corps (United States) to A-Class. Well done! EyeSerene talk 09:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,
Roger Davies
talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The
August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 19:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
173rd Airborne and Operation Crimp
The latter has been expanded so it might be useful in expanding the 173rd article YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 06:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Two issues Ed! Firstly, I've just taken a look at the 159th Inf Regt. It appears to be a copy-out of most of the 7th Inf Div article with most paragraphs not mentioning the regiment at all. I've deleted several of them, but if there's not separate info on the regiment, don't create the page until it becomes available - otherwise it just duplicates the other page. The other is more serious. I've just deleted the 36th Inf Bde page as a copyvio of the globalsecurity.org page on the unit. From the edit history, it appears that somebody pared the material down and removed the copyvio'd material, then you reinserted it soon afterwards. This may not be exactly what happened, but it's what the edit history shows. YOU MAY NOT COPY OUT OTHER ORGANISATIONS' WEBPAGES! Otherwise they will be deleted, as I've just finished doing with a bunch of globalsecurity copyvios from User:Bstockus. Do not do this. Buckshot06( prof) 09:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Understood. My mistake, I worked on that article before I had a more comprehensive understanding on what was and was not allowed on Wikipedia. — Ed! (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Congrats on achieving the GA for this article! You don't have any relationship to the 10th do you? If not, I'd like to pass along to their newsletter The Blizzard an announcement about this article's rating. -- llywrch ( talk) 15:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Nope, I am not in the 10th Mountain, so there's no problem there. Thanks! — Ed! (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Voting in the
Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote
here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,
Roger Davies
talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
All due respect, but including information about other brigades in the articles about 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th brigade is not in keeping with other articles on military units. If the reader wants to know about what the division is doing as a whole they should read the division page. We wouldn't include what the Corps headquarters was doing on the division page, even though your logic would apply there to. BCTs operate independantly, and they should be treated that way on Wikipedia too. JCO312 ( talk) 05:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- False. We don't include subordinate unit information on Corps pages because corps do not have permenantly assigned units, rather they are tactical headquarters which usually find divisions attached to them on a temporary basis. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Brigades of the 10th Mountain are different in that they will always remain units of the 10th Mountain division. The information of each brigade is pertinent on the other brigade's pages because they give an overall picture of what the division overall is doing, why brigades are being deployed as they are, and why one brigade isn't seeing deployment over several years, as they did in past years. It is important, in my mind, to show that the brigades are switching places in the theatres of operations because this is atypical of US Army doctrine; in the past the Army seems to have preferred to keep one unit in theatre for years at a time while simply switching personnel in and out of that command. Understanding that 10th Mountain Division brigades are in a constant state of deployment gives a more important overall sense that the division, on whole, is seeing continuous action, this is pertinent on both the division page and on the pages of the brigades, because these units may be independent, but they are the only mountain warfare units of the US Army, and they tend to take turns deploying in theater. The information about what each is doing is, in my mind one hundred percent essential in the articles of the related units. — Ed! (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the constant state of deployments is relevant for the Division page. But you're not talking about the division page, and this looks a lot like an attempt to fill the BCT pages with irrelevant information. 10th MTN Brigades are not "switching places with one another in theater." 3rd Brigade is currently in Afghanistan, and is being replaced by the 173rd. 1st Brigade redeployed last year, and was not replaced by another 10th MTN brigade. 2nd Brigade is heading out in a few months, and isn't replacing another 10th MTN unit. They don't even fall under the same headquarters when deployed. I don't disagree that the Division page should include information on where each Brigade is going, but the BCT pages are supposed to be about that BCT, and you can't provide any evidence that what 1st brigade does affects what 2nd brigade does, since they really are independent. Since all you're doing is copying/pasting, it looks very much like you're trying to fill the pages with text, which frankly isn't on point. JCO312 ( talk) 06:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've looked at this more trying to figure out a way to incorporate your information. At the very least, I think you have to separate out the history. When you have a section called "recent deployments" in a page about a particular brigade, the reader expects to see information about that brigades recent deployments. Except that half the information as presented is about other units. And a lot of this information remains wholly irrelevant, even under the argument you've put forward. The fact that division headquarters "participated in larger scale operations such as Operation Phantom Phoenix" has absolutley nothing to do with any of its brigades, as none of them were involved in any way. JCO312 ( talk) 06:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think that each and every unit under the command is affected when one of the units is deployed. Yes, the brigades are indepenant, but they are still in fact sister units. I think that the whole picture needs to be painted on each page as to what the division overall is doing. It explains the overall deployment scheme, giving the understanding that these brigades are all on different rotations, and what parts of the division are where and when. I understand your concern, that this information isn't always directly relavent to the direct history of the division, and if these were standard IBCTs I would be more inclined to agree, but I still feel that, as the only mountain warfare brigades in the Army, having information on all of them on all pages makes the articles that much better, particularly since they are all of the same division, and the culture and history around divisions is so strong. — Ed! (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
GA review on 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (United States) article.
Hi there,
I've done a GA review on the above article, and there are a few areas which need to be looked at before the article can be passed. Please view the talk page of 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (United States) article to see which areas need more work on. Regards, Pr3st0n ( talk) 22:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to have to tell you this, but it appears that you got the wrong building for your picture of the Yost Tavern. When I was at the site today, locals pointed me to a building on the other end of the block, which I've photographed here (you can see the street number over the door) and here; it's the same building as in the Ohio Historical Society's profile, here. Not trying to complain, but just asking: would you perhaps be willing to reupload your picture under a different name? Nyttend ( talk) 03:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- I see. I assume it would be better to just delete it, if it does not show anything of value. — Ed! (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
The
September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 23:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I figure that you are probably busy with other pages right now, but if you have time, I would really appreciate your help with these three pages when you can get to them - 92nd Infantry Division (United States), 761st Tank Battalion (United States) and 4th Armored Division (United States). Thank you. Dodgerblue777 ( talk) 21:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've been interested in working on Divisions right now, unfortunately for me to get to work on the 29nd Infantry and the 4th Armored, I need their basic lineage. The book Armies, Corps Divisions, and Separate Brigades by John Wilson has this info, unfortunately I don't have access to the book. Do you know of any lineage resources online I can access? — Ed! (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
http://www.history.army.mil/BOOKS/Lineage/M-F/index.htm http://www.history.army.mil/books/Lineage/in/infantry.htm
Sorry, I know it doesn't help too much, but that's the best I could find online. The entire book itself is not available online, I tried searching the Internet and the Army's website, but could not find it. Dodgerblue777 ( talk) 09:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I do not agree with you fully, and this is not vandalism - rather the Bold, Revert, Delete cycle, as he is adding content. WP:IDONTLIKEIT may be more what's going on. (See the earliest versions of Task Force 402 for another example like this.) Some of what he says is useful - some is insulting and needs to be toned down or removed. I do not believe this IP should be blocked. See what you think of my compromise wording at CJTF 82 and 189th Infantry Brigade. Best regards Buckshot06( prof) 22:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- He hasn't changed the compromise wording. If he does, inform me again. Cheers Buckshot06( prof) 21:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ed... I completed a GA review for Special Troops Battalion, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (United States) several days ago, and just wanted to drop you a note to make sure that you had seen it. You usually respond extremely quickly, so it's somewhat unusual that I haven't heard back from you yet :) Feel free to take you time, like I said, I just wanted to make sure you hadn't missed the review. Dana boomer ( talk) 14:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Hawaii Theological Seminary
An article that you have been involved in editing, Hawaii Theological Seminary, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawaii Theological Seminary. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ἀλήθεια 22:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.
If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up
here, read up on the rules
here, and discuss the contest
here!
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 18:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)