User talk:Ed!/5

Hendersonville, TN photos
I was reading the article on Hendersonville, TN and I see your photo is embedded into the page there, I'd like to ask that if you have any more photos of Hendersonville I'd like to get a copy of them. I can't remember what my login here is so just post on http://www.flamecentral.info if you could to reply —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.34.2 (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All of my photography is avaliable, free to use through wikipedia, on my Photography page. — Ed! (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 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) 22:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sustainment Brigade (Special Operations) (Airborne)
According to the official 2009 US Special Operations Command Factbook the Special Operations Support Command does not exist in the U.S. Army Special Operations Command anymore and in its place the Sustainment Brigade (Special Operations) (Airborne) was activated on December 2, 2005 (with the same units attached). Therefore it is clear that User:Outdawg wrongly moved the page last August. I requested that the name be corrected and the article moved to Sustainment Brigade (Special Operations) (Airborne). However this supposedly runs afoul of the naming conventions... which seems rather strange to me (how can the correct name as given by the US Special Operations Command be not acceptable???). Anyway: if you wish to participate in the discussion, you can find it here: Talk:Special Operations Support Command. --noclador (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Clarence Cope
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Clarence Cope, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * A couple of college newspaper articles aren't sufficient to demonstrate notability.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Rklawton (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

172nd IBCT
Hallo Ed! I would like to call your attention to the article of 172nd Infantry Brigade which was again moved without discussion by Dcfowler1. Hope you can give a professional opinion on this. Thanks and greeting, --Tafkas (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll do that on the talk page, we can hold a vote about it. - Ed! (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

7th Infantry Division Brigades
Hey Ed. I have some problems with the three Brigade articles you've nominated for GAN. Looking through them, apart from a few minor differences, they all look exactly the same down to the citations and references, and they also appear to be missing a large section of their history - namely their WWII service. According to their parent article the division saw a great deal of action in the Pacific theatre during WWII, but there is absolutely nothing about this in their articles. Could you possibly clarify these matters for me? Skinny87 (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. About the article similarities, at many points they have similar histories, so I decided to put in everything that happened to all three in each article for clarity purposes because I think that makes them all more comprehensive by themselves. About the World War II section, as the history sections state, none of the brigades were active during World War II, because the US Army used a Regimental system in World War II and Korea before switching back to Brigades afterward. - Ed! (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you've put them up for a Good Topic. Browsing through the articles, it seems odd to me that you've used so few sources, and almost all of them seem to be official or related to the US Army in some way. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but a lack of diversity and details concerns me, especially for the parent article; surely there's a divisional history that you could have used, for example? Skinny87 (talk) 07:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I've been having a hard time finding comprehensive sources for the Division and, for now, the books provided online by the US Army Center for Military History are all the book resources I've been able to find. In a few weeks, however, I intend to put in more work on the articles when I have access to a few public libraries around my home town. I intended to try and promote all of them further, but for the next few weeks, I've used all the resources I have access to. - Ed! (talk) 03:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

7th Infantry Division Legacy
I see that you deleted my small contribution. Would like to know why. srSeniorCitizen
 * Sure. I've rebuilt the article in the past month and dramatically increased its quality. It was recently promoted to a Good Article and, along with the articles for its three subordinate brigades, it is currently nominated to be a Good Topic. Therefore, I've been watching the article closely to make sure it stays at the highest quality possible.


 * Regarding this:
 * Known by veterans, the 7th ID was a tough as nails unit. Trained in light infantry tactics with an emphasize on jungle warfare, soldiers were consistently in the field for weeks. Discipline and training was essential and the unit was on constant combat readiness (ready to deploy within an hour).
 * The reason I removed that part is that it is not sourced. Per WP:CITE, statements like this must be cited to a verifiable source, such as a book or newspaper article, which must be present in the article. Since the statement comes of as a non-factual opinion, I am concerned that it will be contested, reducing the article's reliability. If you have a source for that statement, feel free to add the graph again with the cited source.


 * Regarding this:
 * Command Sergeant Major of AFRICOM, Mark S. Ripka
 * The list of names on that passage includes people who are notable enough to have their own articles on Wikipedia. CSM Ripka is of high rank, but not high enough to warrant his own article on Wikipedia, and as the Division has had such a long history, there are too many names that could go there, which would just make the article too long. And as the statement is also unsourced, it could threaten the advancement of the article in quality if it stays on the page without a source. I hope that helps! - Ed! (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 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) 22:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary removal of File:197thInfantryBrigade.svg
I'm writing in regards to your removal of File:197thInfantryBrigade.svg from 197th Infantry Brigade. I created an exact digitized rendering of the 197th Infantry Brigade's insignia so that it would be in accordance with Wikipedia's Image Use Policy which outlines:

the use of JPEG format for photographic images; SVG format for icons, logos, drawings, maps, flags, and such

Reverting the insignia back to the low-resolution .jpg file is simply counter-productive both to the integrity of the page but also goes against the basic outline of the image use policy. More clearly, the .svg format is a far superior choice both in quality, size, and general flexibility (i.e., it is a vector and is not subject to the compression and blurring of a .jpg image). Additionally, your version of the insignia is not a photographic image; it is a scan of the insignia. For these reasons I am reverting your edit on the 197th Infantry Brigade page back to the .svg rendering of the insignia. 04:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrimsonScholar (talk • contribs)
 * Sorry if that came off a bit too hostile (?). I was looking through some of your other insignia contributions and they're all a great starting point for digitization. We're both working towards the same goal: improving the (U.S.) military-related articles on wikipedia. So, if it's alright with you, I'm going to continue to work off of your aforementioned contributions by continuing to digitize insignia so that there's more high-quality insignia gracing the pages of wikipedia. CrimsonScholar(talk • contribs) 05:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To be honest, my concern was with the shade of blue used on the insignia. The version I uploaded was from The Institute of Heraldry, the original creators of the insignia. Their version uses a much darker blue. Normally I would be ambivalent on such things, but TIOH has very tecnical descriptions on each insignia. I've seen the 197th Brigade's insignia and it matches that shade of blue (as opposed to the 193rd Infantry Brigade Insignia, which uses a shade much closer to the new 197th Brigade file) I apologize because I now realize I should have just asked you about this in the first place. - Ed! (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, it's an easy fix. I'll have to cross-reference different sources for future reference when digitizing these insignias so that everything is completely accurate. CrimsonScholar(talk • contribs) 05:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks great now. Thanks for your understanding and I apologize again for the miscommunication. - Ed! (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael J. Daly
Good Day Sir, I wanted to let you know that I have been hacking away at the Michael J. Daly article and was wondering if you could go back through and take a look at it for me. I still need to work on some referening issues but I want to make sure I addressed your other concerns. Thanks --Kumioko (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Gladly. Just let me know when you've finished the fixes. - Ed! (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am done, I had to remove some of the info because I coudn't find the sources but I added in quite a bit with references also so I think it balanced it out.  I also added in a general reference. Please let me know if I need to make any more changes.--Kumioko (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that GA should be transcluded, not substituted. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh. My mistake. Thanks for correcting. - Ed! (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 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) 22:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Most recent picture
I just wanted to say that I really like your your most recent picture. Although you didn't take it, uploading it has directed me towards a quite interesting place to poke around in. Thanks. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 23:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I was impressed by army.mil's photos too, and I've been trying to upload the most interesting ones to wikipedia. — Ed! (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

GA review for USS Benham (DD-49) (finally!)
I've been very gnome-like lately, and missed both your GA review of USS Benham (DD-49) and your kind notice on my talk page. I've responded to your concerns on the review page. Thanks for taking the time to review the article, and for your patience! — Bellhalla (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. — Ed! (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Edson and Stone
Thanks for reviewing these 2 articles. After 6 weeks I was beginning to give up hope. I will address your concerns in the next couple days. --Kumioko (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I hear you. With 14 articles currently queued for review, I got sick of waiting. Anyway, take your time fixing them and let me know when they're done, but FYI I will be unable to respond during June 23-26 due to an upcoming vacation. -— Ed! (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats ok that gives me almost a year I should have them done by then.:-) I know you mean July. --Kumioko (talk) 01:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha. My bad. — Ed! (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I addressed all the issues with Edson and I put out a request to a couple of folks to read through it but I was wondering if you could take a look and see if I missed anything. I am going to start working on Stone tonight. --Kumioko (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe I hit the highlights on Stone, and just the citation work needs to be done. Please double check me. For the record, I'm the user who applied the cite needed tag, as a challenge to an editor (User:Kresock) who was building the page up a bit. I suspect the statement is untrue anyway. BusterD (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help and I see Edson is passed I will work on Stone over the next day or 2 and try and get that one up to satisfaction. --Kumioko (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I went and finished up Stone. The reference at the end of each paragraph applies to that paragraph and the references within it apply to the page or pages of that reference. If you need me to individually mark each one I can but it seems pointless. Other than that it should be done. --Kumioko (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As the GAR says, those quotes still need refs directly after them. Per WP:CITE and WP:QUOTE, the lack of references constitutes plagarism. — Ed! (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm with Ed. I'm out of town myself until late on the 27th. If this doesn't get done to Ed's satisfaction, I request Ed keep the review open until the end of the 28th, so I can finish any open sources. This doesn't look like too big a task, however. I'm going to try to finish my work on the Legacy section before end of day July 24. BusterD (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok I think I got them all. --Kumioko (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Groovy and thanks, both of you. I still owe Ed! a better legacy section. BusterD (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
MLauba (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

GA
...And I've responded. Sorry for the delay, my time is not my own at the moment. I will get onto Liberation of Arnhem as quickly as possible to. Could I have a deadline (ie. a week) so I know how long I've got? Cheers Ranger Steve (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm really not in a rush and won't make time a factor unless the GAR is like a month old and hasn't been touched. Take your time and let me know when it's ready. — Ed! (talk) 03:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * HiEd, I think I've covered most of the points you raised. Would you mind another look?  Cheers Ranger Steve (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. — Ed! (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

GA review of Egmont Prinz zur Lippe-Weißenfeld
Hi, I'm back. I believe I have addressed all your concerns. At least I have tried. Please have a look again and let me know what you think. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me, well done. — Ed! (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

GA review of Kurt Welter
Hi, thanks for your support on Prinz zur Lippe! I tweaked the Kurt Welter article a bid. I could use some help on the grammar (English is not my native language). Unfortunetly I found no information anywhere on his private life. So this seems the best can do at this point. Please let me know how I'm progressing. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you have a second look yet? I believe that all the issues that I can address have been addressed. His personnel life is still a weak spot. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

MILHIST contest deadline approaching…
Ed, just a friendly reminder that the Military History contest deadline is approaching, in case you have any articles that need to be listed there. Cheers. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder! I think I got all the articles I needed in on time, though. — Ed! (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Thank you both! — Ed! (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Good News!
just penned an academy page concerning templates that touches on the displaced edit tab problem and where to go to fix it. The academy page is here, and according to the essay the page with the solutions should WP:BUNCH. Hope that helps. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I got some help with that from one of the other users on the 24th ID page. I'll fix it on the 45th ID page and any others that have the problem. — Ed! (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Downtown Miamisburg??
First I wanted to say thank you for protecting our great country, ummm but second the photo you posted in the Downtown Miamisburg article isnt Downtown. I think it would be smart to not post photos of things that arent what they are. I live in Miamisburg and all your photo is a street in Miami Township. Not saying you have to live somehwere to post photos of that place but if you dont know what your doing keep it up to the professionals!!! MarkDonna (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks for all your help, bud, you didn't have to be so condascending. I'll move the image to the Miami Township page then. I live in Springboro, my mistake. — Ed! (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)