User talk:Fury 1991

September 2016
Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Battle of 73 Easting. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Plagiarism, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 January
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * On the Battle of Norfolk page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=760265098 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F760265098%7CBattle of Norfolk%5D%5D Ask for help])
 * On the Task Force 1-41 Infantry page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=760268430 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F760268430%7CTask Force 1-41 Infantry%5D%5D Ask for help])

101st Airborne Division
Please provide references for the trivia you added back to the article 101st Airborne Division, or remove. Thanks. 08:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, I did. Everything I add to any article is referenced.Fury 1991 (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991

cites
Thank you for your additions. It would be helpful if you would use the sfn (Shortened FootNote) template for citing for the sources you add. See User:Diannaa/Citation templates for further information. And to link up properly to the books you then cite one would use harv cite; see User:Diannaa/My cite templates. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

April 2017
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dino nam (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Battle of Cao Bang (1979) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.''Warning also issued to Dino nam. '' UserDe (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Warning
Your recent editing history at Continuation War shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Talleyrand20 (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is well sourced information being removed????Fury 1991 (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991

Citation on Russian commando frogmen
Hi Fury 1991, Thank you for adding references to Russian commando frogmen. When citing a book, please add as much identification as you can to uniquely identify the book over the long term, as it makes verification more practicable. I have tried to fill in the gaps, but I don't know if the information I added is for the same edition/imprint that you used, so the page numbers may not match. Please check the expanded reference against your source and correct if necessary. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I did just fine. Few books out there on this subject.Fury 1991 (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991

October 2017
Hello, I'm Denniss. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Wehrmacht seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Denniss (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It was sourced. Not from me but the source I used.Fury 1991 (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991

Re: 101st
In my view: The definition of an assault is common knowledge; that actions undertaken by large groups of individuals require planning, coordination, and execution is just common sense; and the wording reads like an advertisement. You disagree and that's fine, I'm not going to argue it. It was a single edit, not some drawn-out edit war over the wording, or a personal attack on you. Darthkenobi0||talk 04:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

And while you're contemplating this, you might take some time to explain the note you left on my talk page.-- Georgia Army Vet  Contribs  Talk  14:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I explained my reasoning in the edit summary and here, and I'm not trying to force my view. You're being pointlessly aggressive about wording to apparently multiple other users. It's a collaborative encyclopedia. Calm down.Darthkenobi0||talk 08:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just one other individual who has a history of butchering the articles for no reason at all. His history log speaks for itself. You need to quit removing information based on assumptions that everybody is well informed on the military when in fact most are clueless.Fury 1991 (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991

8th Field Artillery
No, I didn't. No elements of 5-8 FA were ever assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division. They were assigned to the 18th Field Artillery Brigade, which was assigned to XVIII Airborne Corps Artillery. They were located at FT Bragg, but that doesn't make them part of the 82nd.82redleg (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, they were. You 82nd guys are just sensitive about it. They also used to wear your patch. I know because I was there 23 years ago.Fury 1991 (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991.
 * I wasn't there, but I serve with people that were. 5-8 was assigned to the Corps Artillery, not to the 82nd. Period. Full Stop. That's it.
 * Bullshit. They wore the AA patch for years.Fury 1991 (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991
 * Then provide some evidence- photos, orders, something. I have your unsupported assertion- as an unknown editor on Wikipedia that apparently has consistent issues with reliability and objectivity- vs all the official documentation published by the Army and the reports of many other people that I know in real life, friends that I've deployed to combat with. Frankly, it's a real easy choice.
 * I would really watch the personal attacks as I have supported all my information with reliable resources unlike yourself. Most of what you provide here is often unsourced or vague. I know for a fact that the 5-8th regiment was once a airborne qualified regiment that bore the patch of the 82nd Airborne. Also, sign off on your comments. By the way, I was with Battery C so I know I am not imagining these things.Fury 1991 (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991
 * Blahblahblahblah. You're the only one that has ever challenged by citations, and there's numerous issues with your biased posts, you have numerous editorial wars and warnings about them- there's at least 2 or 3 sitting on this talk page right now.82redleg (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am doing pretty good considering I have edited entire articles and created three on my own. Just three editorial wars from people who are clueless like yourself.Fury 1991 (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991
 * Wow, three whole articles!?!?!?! How do you ever manage that kind of output?82redleg (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I did sign my post but you posted after a paragraph.82redleg (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 5-8 was never airborne qualified and on jump status. I can find no record that they were ever assigned to the 82nd. I confirmed with my old boss who was a CPT in the 82nd (2-321/3-319), MAJ in 2-8 (Ord to Lewis move under then-LTC Odierno), commanded 3-321 (the non-ABN/non-AASLT battalion in 18th FA BDE, reflagged from 3-8 in 1996), and the commanded 82nd DIVARTY. If he doesn't know the history of airborne FA and the 8th FAR, I don't know who does. But I've got a couple of other sources that I'm checking with, too. I still think you're full of crap.82redleg (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)82redleg (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It was from 90-97. Go to paratrooper.org. Several of those guys were in the unit. You ass.Fury 1991 (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991
 * Nope. 1-377 was reactivated in 1996, so 5-8 wasn't anything in 1997. Now I know you're just making stuff up. But I'll go over to paratrooper.org to check. I'm guessing that you don't understand the difference between a few guys on permissive jump status and the unit being on jump status.82redleg (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was gone in 94. I was with Battery C at FT Campbell. We were air assault. The other two batteries were airborne qualified. We would go to Bragg and train twice a year. They would also visit Campbell. I could be off by a year even two.Fury 1991 (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991
 * Those two batteries were at FT Bragg, but they weren't on jump status, and weren't assigned to the 82nd, but to 18th FA BDE.82redleg (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * They were during my era 92-94. Trust me they all had their wings and they called us legs because we were air assault.Fury 1991 (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991
 * And the story changes yet again. Now its not that they were on jump status, and that they were assigned to the 82nd (which would mean wearing the AA patch), but now its "they all had their wings". Wings are earned by a 3 week school that consists of about 12 hours of training crammed into 10 days, and then 5 jumps. Being on status means being in a unit that is on jump status- during the time frame you're talking about (90-96), that meant 1-39 FA in 18th FA BDE, and three battalions of the 319th FA in the 82nd, plus a couple of separate batteries. That's it, not 3-8, not 5-8. I did talk to an officer that was in 1-39 FA during this time, and he said each battalion was aligned with a brigade from the 82nd, but they didn't wear the patch and weren't on status. That's two data points from people that I know and have worked for, vs an un-named trouble-maker on wiki. Still think you're wrong.82redleg (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Moron they were on jump status. I know nothing about 1-39 and these other units. They have nothing to do with it. You can not even follow the conversation. Why would I even make these things up? Like I care. I know what I experienced. Do what you want. Like I care. We were with the big gun M198 155mm while the rest of you were on those cap guns.Fury 1991 (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991
 * That's rich, coming from the guy that wanted to warn me about ad hominem attacks. You know nothing about those other units, huh? They were right beside you. I don't know if you're making things up, or just don't know what you're talking about. Being in a jump status unit means more than just graduating the Basic Airborne Course- it means getting paid to jump. And the unit that was on status was 1-39. 5-8 was air assault, so designated from sometime in the early 90s. But I think I may know a BN CDR from Desert Storm, so I'll check with him at work on MON. And I have some other acquaintances that were at Bragg in the early 90s- I'll double check with them, too. So far, I've got a couple of retired COLs, and a couple of retired senior NCOs (1SG and CSM) that say 5-8 was never on status and never wore the AA.82redleg (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again I was with the unit stationed at Campbell. Why would I be familiar with the units at Bragg? I was down there two weeks a year.Fury 1991 (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991
 * If you're not familiar with the units at Bragg, then maybe you shouldn't go starting fights about them. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.82redleg (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Like you don't about 5-8. By the way, how many Wiki articles have you created on your own? I bet none.Fury 1991 (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991
 * I know what the published Army history says, and it doesn't make any mention of the 82nd. I know what numerous veterans of 18th FA BDE and 82nd ABN DIVARTY have told me- they are unanimous that 5-8 was never on jump status. My info is solid. Since you want to compare sizes, I've started all 10 of the current DIVARTY articles- many are still works in progress, but they are all created- as well as a number of field artillery battalion articles. There's lots more work to do on FA history.82redleg (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is all yours. I did what I set out to do and that was the Task Force 1-41 Infantry article and clean up and add detail to the Battle of Norfolk. Maybe you can improve the 3rd Field artillery regiment article as far as the intro and early history. I took care of the 4th battalion section which I served. I improved many other articles along the way. I did over half the 101st. I'm pretty much done here.Fury 1991 (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991
 * I got a response from my old BN XO, who said "I was in 5-8-- we wore leg hats and 18th FA BDE patch. I was there 92-94 and then I shifted over to 18th Aviation BDE.  1-39 was Airborne and jumped, 5-8 was AASLT and the other 155 Bn was leg-- 3-8 FA I think before they shifted." I knew that he was in 18th FA, didn't realize that he was 5-8. I'm going to consider the issue of the edit closed- no element of the 8th FA was ever officially assigned to the 82nd or on jump status.82redleg (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I just have strong memories of them calling us legs. Interesting but ok.Fury 1991 (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991

That section had some other erroneous information. The batteries of 5-8 were not redesignated, they were reflagged (technically, one unit was inactivated and a different unit activated with the same personnel/equipment). If they had been redesignated, then the new unit would retain the lineage of the old unit- like when 8th FA Regiment was redesignated 8th FA Battalion, or when Battery A, 8th FA was reorganized and redesignated as 1st Battalion, 8th FA. 82redleg (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
Hello, I'm Denniss. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Wehrmacht seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Denniss (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is sourced. I do not see the problem.Fury 1991 (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991
 * Not every source is good, reliable and/or neutral. The statement has no value for the article at all and seems heavily biased (a very strange statement no reputable author would do). --Denniss (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * He is entitled to his opinion.Fury 1991 (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991

3rd Field Artillery
Fury, the edits you made to the 3rd Field Artillery Regiment (United States) don't apply to the whole regiment, but only to the 4th Battalion. The VUA that you added back in doesn't even apply to the whole battalion, but to the fire support element for 1-41 IN. I'm taking them out of the regimental article, and will add them into a new article about 4th Battalion, 3rd Field Artillery. 82redleg (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Why are you putting "Current Status of Regimental Elements" as the first section? It looks very unattractive and most people do not have

a clue what that even means. It is insignificant to the general public. Just saying.Fury 1991 (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991
 * Ok.Fury 1991 (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991

United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance
Your recent addition to Force Recon has been reverted. The attached source did not provide information to support your edit. Please ensure you provide reliable sources that sufficiently support any content you add to Wikipedia. Thank you - the WOLF  child  22:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018
Please do not add or change content, as you did at United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article.  'Note: per WP:BRD once you have been reverted, do not revert again. Go to the article talk page and discuss the issue.  - the WOLF ' child  01:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:SOCK of User:Don Brunett
Hi Don, I'm not sure what your understanding of the rules is, but you were blocked from editing as User:Don Brunett for copyright violations. One cannot just copy material straight from other sites into WP. Using this account you're in breech of WP:SOCK for abusing multiple accounts. As I see if, you have two choices: stop editing immediately, or I can go through the sockpuppet process. Regards, Buckshot06 (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you! WMF Surveys, 18:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey
Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks! WMF Surveys, 01:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

'''If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again.''' We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. WMF Surveys, 00:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:SOCK
With some regret, due to your undoubted expertise on military matters, I have to inform you that I believe you are a sock of User:Don Brunett, and have therefore filed the request for investigation at Sockpuppet investigations/Don Brunett. You are of course entitled to put your views at that page. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)