User talk:MCG

Category:Military history
Please don't add general historical topics to this category; as the category description indicates, it is intended for only a few high-level categories. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 07:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Categories
You have added a category to (eg) Royal Canadian Sea Cadets of Category:Military Youth Groups. The issue is that this category contains the category Category:Naval Cadet Organisations. Thus the article is already categorised in Category:Military Youth Groups as a matter of course. You probably did not notice this when you added it. I have reverted the addition of that category, and wanted you to know why.

As a convention we place articles in the lowest possible place in the category hierarchy.

Hope this helps you, and please enjoy future editing and contributing to Wikipedia

Fiddle Faddle 09:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you created the new parent category. That may explain it.  From my perspective "good call" with the parent category. Fiddle Faddle 09:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

New unit categories
If it's not too much trouble, could you hold off on creating lots of new categories until we've finished discussing the structure and naming conventions to use? As it is, it's likely to just be extra categories that will need complicated renamings. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 04:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

STA merges
Perhaps you are confused about the nature of the merges you suggested.

ISTAR and C4ISTAR are one thing: They describe a systems based doctrine for command, control, and surveillance/targeting. Those groups I have no problem with you merging.

However: RSTA is a physical type of squadron in the US Army. It's not just a doctrine: It's an actual type of squadron, just like cavalry or infantry (battalion). STA is the same thing for the USMC.

Merging these two would be like merging Hacker and Information Systems: just because the two cover similar ground does not mean they are the same.

I'm thus removing RSTA and STA from your merges. Your ISTAR/C4ISTAR merges are probably ok. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  23:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sold. I propose discussion occur here at Talk:C4ISTAR.   -- MCG 03 Sept 06


 * Unfortunately it doesn't matter if you're sold or not, if your logical reasoning for the merge is faulty. I've explained it in depth at the c4ISTAR talk page, however I've removed again RSTA and STA from your merges. They refer to something completely different, in no way similar to C4ISTAR, therefore a merge is not valid. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  00:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I propose discussion occur here at Talk:C4ISTAR.  -- MCG 04 Sept 06

Military unit categories
I would try to avoid getting too carried away with doing category renamings by hand; the proposal still has to be put through CFD before it's official (at which point there will be bots available to do most of it for us). Thanks! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 23:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

ABCA Armies
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as ABCA Armies, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.abca-armies.org/ABCA_History.asp, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), you can comment to that effect on Talk:ABCA Armies. Then you should do one of the following:
 * Make a note on the original website that re-use is permitted under the GFDL and state at Talk:ABCA Armies where we can find that note; or
 * Send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:ABCA Armies.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! -- ReyBrujo 21:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: Science and technology
Much thanks for the invitation, but not interested. SteveMc 18:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

September 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:MCG, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Leedeth 00:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No content in Category:Robotech and Macross military organizations
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Robotech and Macross military organizations, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Robotech and Macross military organizations has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Robotech and Macross military organizations, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

January 2010
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also useful when reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. -- RP459  Talk/Contributions 04:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Addition To Military Technology & Equipment Request
Gentlemen, in our effort to play by the rules and to respect the ongoing work of all the contributors to this section we are formally requesting inclusion to this section "Military Technology & Equipment" under the "See Also" section. We are a non-commercial Press Release organization that works on behalf of most of the leading weapons and equipment manufacturers INCONUS. Essentially when there is new weapons, equipment or gear being released within the industry (MILSPEC and Other) we are contacted to release the information to the general public.

It is our desire to be listed as:

Tactical Gear News: The latest tactical gear news covering weapons,training, clothing and tactical equipment.

Milspecnews (talk)milspecnews

Category:Military units and formations of the Cold War
See proposal to delete Category:Military units and formations of the Cold War & Category:Military units and formations of the United States in the Cold War Hugo999 (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

U.S. spelling of 'defense'
Hi MCG, Thanks for the work with category updates. FYI, 'defence' is spelled 'defense' in the US, so Category:United States defence procurement should be renamed to Category:United States defense procurement. I can change it later today, unless you have some automated tools to do it faster. --CapitalR (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I knew that too. Sorry for the oversight.  I have no tool that can do it faster, so please go ahead.  MCG (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Military units and formations by era
Category:Military units and formations by era, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding
Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Military bridges and ferries
Category:Military bridges and ferries, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 04:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

2nd Canadian Infantry Division vs. 2nd Canadian Division
Hi, I've started a discussion here and would be interested in your take on it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Science and technology for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Science and technology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Science and technology & until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 19:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Surveillance and target acquisition


The article Surveillance and target acquisition has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Vague WP:DICTDEF with no sources demonstrating WP:GNG."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tooncool64 (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)