Talk:69th Infantry Regiment (United States)

total confusion
pay attention people. the national guard unit is not the federal unit!!! Brian in denver (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparent duplication of article
Please see proposal here -- Talk:69th Infantry Regiment (New York) -- to Redirect rather than duplicate. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC) ok looks like were going to have an edit war, with someone who cant bother to sign in guess i'll have to see if it can be locked down. Brian in denver (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * wow absolutly unbelievable that such a simple concept can be so hard to grasp! the federal unit is not the national guard unit period... what on earth is the problem? Brian in denver (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ok one last time. for all you people with ZERO reading comprehension. Brian in denver (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I wrote a lot of the 69th NY article and served in it when it was the 165th US.  The 69th (NY) and the the 69th (US) are completely separate units and have NOTHING in common.  A case might be made for linking the 69th NY article to the 165th US, but not to the 69th US.  Read some of the footnoted histories on the 69th NY page folks, instead of just being Wikipedia wonks.  !!!!  GCW50 (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

PLEASE DON'T MERGE THIS ARTICLE WITH THE "(New York)" ARTICLE
How's that (headline), User:GCW50?

You, GCW, have dragged me back to this page after most of three years. In my defense, I was correct in my observation above but the action I proposed at that time -- which I never executed -- did put me on the wrong side of the bigger, subsequent argument you've done a lot, I think, to resolve in substance. Now I'm working on the 'wonk' side of it to make sure the resolution sticks (hoping I understand it all, now).

When I was last here, the two articles "... (New York)" and "... (United States)" had identical content. Now, in 2015, this one has appropriate, it appears, new content; about wholly different unit(s). So merger would be completely wrong.

I have done a little editing to this "(United States)" article today and think I will be doing (unless someone else gets there first) some on "(New York)"; to try to make clear in the contents of both articles as I read them that they are completely separate and distinct.

And hopefully this section of this Talk page -- to which you (GCW50, with four tildes, preferably: ~ = tilde; for signature and read(ier) communication) and User:Brian in denver and others will add their agreement -- will prevent a merger of this with "(New York)".

How's that (explanation)? Sorry for the frustration on your part. Good work. Thanks for your service. Swliv (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ATTENTION: THIS NEXT AS FIRST POSTED AT "New York" regiment Talk page:


 * After consultation with the editor who ruled on the merge decision here, it's become clear that the merge decision was made when the content was still identical between the 'New York' and the 'United States' articles as it was when I was here three years ago. Now, assuming consensus on this page and with that editor, I'm now removing the merge templates from all four pages: from this and the other Talk page and from the two article pages. I'll post this identical message, also, on the other talk page. If there's any further discussion to be had I'd recommend at least cross-linking between the two Talk pages.


 * Thanks all. Sorry it took so long. Glad we're here. Hope this is right but am ready to go back to work if it's not; please bring me back in if I have missed something. Swliv (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Storing" merge templates here; first from "New York" Talk page; the second two from "New York" article; the last from this page; there was not one on the "New York" article; NONE OF THEM NOW OPERATIONAL:


 * Sorry for all the capitals, bold-faced type and the clutter of the old templates. For the emphatic voice: There seemed to be some urgency and importance to getting this right this time, without any more go-rounds (for the while; it's Wikipedia after all). For the clutter: I am feeling my way here. Removing consensus templates is not done without caution. I'm being cautious. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "Disabled" merge tag ({merge to|69th Infantry Regiment (United States)|date=February 2015}) as it still appears on the "Articles to be merged from February 2015" category, lest someone come upon it and decide to proceed. Mannanan51 (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)