User talk:Retired User 44052/Archive 2

Survey about History on Wikipedia
I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

February 2022
Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Space Training and Readiness Command. 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) 15:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 21st Space Wing into Space Delta 2. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Greetings and an invitation
Hi Garuda28! I come in peace. As an avid follower of Neovu79 and Morinao, I wanted to tell you that me, KingEdinburgh (I believe you two know each other) and EPMen have followed in your footsteps and closely track three-star and four-star military appointments. If you want, you can join in our mega-discussion here, as you used to with Morinao. Looking forward to seeing you there! SuperWIKI (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I appreciate the invite! Garuda28 (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Timeline matter
About the timelines on military positions thing, I did add most of them, but I seriously don't understand the issue here and who's in the wrong. How much consensus is needed for what is likely to receive very little attention? Worried that the IP user may start putting the blame game on me for some conflict-of-interest over something that compared to lead images and language use is unlikely to receive any reply on the talk page aside from us 3 users. Very troubled here, need some counsel. SuperWIKI (talk) 07:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't worry too much about it. You started the talk page. If the IP doesn't engage and continues to edit war (per WP:BRD they should leave the status quo be until they have consensus to change). If they continue to unilaterally revert, they get reported for edit warring. Garuda28 (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Goldfein
Another comparatively minor issue that I feel could spread if not adequately addressed. Recent edits to the David Goldfein page have me worried. I don't disagree with the person's points about WP:NOTCV but this could theoretically to the 90% of the military officer articles and lists people like me, KingEdinburgh, Neovu79, Morinao, EPMen and you edit and track regularly. Do the dates of rank contravene WP:NOTCV? Asking someone who's edited the site a lot longer than me. The guy seems to have a history of edit warring and getting blocked by admins but also is watchful for vandalism, malicious IP edits and sockpuppetry so I don't know what to think anymore.

Perhaps I'm being unnecessarily stressed over a one-time thing. Maybe. SuperWIKI (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

NORAD
Hi there Garuda28. I saw your revert. Our relevant style guide WP:INFOBOXFLAG strongly recommends against using them in this way. It's a bit funny to say that using flags like this is "permissible"; almost anything is permissible on Wikipedia. I would say it's more a question of whether it's useful to the general reader to have the little flags rather than just the names of the two countries. Do you think it is? John (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I do. (the template does exist as well, so why not use it?) It is a really quick way to identify which country it is. The other aspect is that in almost all major military organization pages they are present, which would suggest a consensus exists. That's why I suggested the MILHIST page, so we can create a community wide consensus rather than have some have flags in the infobox and some not. Garuda28 (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I find a really quick way to identify a country is to read the name. It's doesn't take long, and it's easier to read a word than a tiny flag on a small screen. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a chat site where Icons replace actual thoughts! :) BilCat (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly. There's already a fairly mature consensus across Wikipedia not to use flags in this way, so I don't think a new discussion is required. Most of the space agency pages I looked at do not do this, so I was merely adjusting the handful which did to follow the MoS guidance. John (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations opening soon
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting opening soon!
Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Correction to previous election announcement
Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting closing soon
Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Flag of the United States Space Force, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Operation New Dawn.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Warning
Please don't change the format of dates, as you did to Flag of the United States Space Force. As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. Please also note that Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes (e.g., st, nd, th), articles, or leading zeros on dates.

For more information about how dates should be written on Wikipedia, please see this page.

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. Thank you. 177.76.22.139 (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're wrong. Per MOS:MILFORMAT: "...articles on the modern US military, including biographical articles related to the modern US military, should use day-before-month, in accordance with US military usage.". As such, I've reverted you. Don't change it again. - w o lf  18:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Question
Hey, just curious... are you still working on the United States Armed Forces page? I noticed the changes so far, eg: reductions to the the USA, USMC & USN sections, and increases to the USAF, USSF & USCG sections (they're all so far unexplained, though I assume they're worthwhile), I also noticed several bare url refs added, some of which are duplicates, and some minor typos, but if you're still working at it, then please disregard this. Thanks - w o lf  04:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Still working through them! Trying to find ways to expand the USA, USMC, and USN missions ones without it being bureaucratic language (the USAF, USSF, and USCG made it quite easier by having sources that explained theirs in plain English). If you see any typos would you be willing to fix them if I miss them? Garuda28 (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No problemo. Cheers - w o lf  19:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Quick note about copying from public domain sources
Hi! I noticed recently that you've copied from a public domain source in this edit. Copying from public domain sources is perfectly fine copyright-wise, and it is encouraged to help build our encyclopedia. However, when doing so, we are required not only to cite the PD source, but also to acknowledge that the source was copied from in our article's references section. There are a few templates that can help do this for you, such as PD-inline, and these sorts of templates can be inserted between the relevant  tags so as to satisfy this requirement. Happy editing! — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 20:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
Hi, I saw your opinion at Silver Star discussion.

I think that you are good at military field.

If you have spare time, Can you participate in below discussion?

Spartan_3000 Discussion

Anyway, Thanks!Footwiks (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 31
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United States Space Force, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seapower.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

FAC close
I hope you aren't too disheartened by the FAC close. I suggest that you work on the suggestions provided by the reviewers and consider GAN after fixing the bare urls and primary sourcing concerns. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Space National Guard
Hi, have you seen this? I haven't added it to the Space National Guard, as I wasn't sure it was noteworthy enough, or just routine coverage. What do you think? BilCat (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hard to say. Really depends on what the Senate chooses to do. Garuda28 (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I'll hold off for now, which was my inclination. BilCat (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)