User talk:Sadads/Archive May - Mid-July 2010

Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms Banner
Hope I'm not giving you topo much of a headache with Templates and Banners! Just a quick question - when we change the Project Banner do manually added banners get changed at the same time, or is a bot needed to replace them? I've been adding, editing and reorganising them manually since we started, and I'm not much of a code-monkey so thought I'd check!Metabaronic (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The banners update automatically once their page is edited, but it may take a little bit of time, depending on how many processes are running on the server. Redirects also work with templates, so if the template is used alot and you want to rename it, the redirect also fixes the code. I think I answered your question? Sadads (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hope so - only one way to find out!Metabaronic (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Updating the CMH Bibliography of Arkansas Army National Guard History
Appreciate your addition to the Arkansas Army National Guard page! I am Soldier in the Arkansas Army National Guard and I work with a group that our Chief of Staff has chartered called the Arkansas National Guard History Roundtable. We meet every other month or so and work on military history projects.

We are currently working to compile a more complete Bibliography of Arkansas National Guard History. I have part of the work on Wikipedia at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Damon.cluck/Bibliography_of_Arkansas_National_Guard_History

At one time our state museum foundation published the Arkansas Military Journal. I am working to include those articles in the bibliography.

It would be interesting to talk some time. You might be a great presenter for our group, if you ever have occasion to travel to Arkansas.

I wonder if you, in your work at the CMH, have access to applications for Meritorious Unit Citations which have been granted to units for OIF? One of the units that I have written a Wikipedia article on 1st Battalion, 153rd Infantry Regiment was awarded MUC for OIF II, but unfortunately no one in the unit has a copy of the application. They have the permanent order, but the real details are contained in the application. Damon.cluck (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would certainly like to help, don't know, if I, as an intern,, will have the opportunity to go to Arkansas, kindof far to go and being a college student don't have a whole lot of money. Though contact with the group should would be interesting. The roundtable sounds like an opportunity to communicate about Arkansas National Guard history to more than just the academic community but also Wikipedians and the broader public. I am very interested in coordinating with cultural groups such as the CMH and the Roundtable about Wikipedia. I envision such activities as the NIH presentation last year, to be pertinent to all historical and museum-like entities. I will tell my supervisor that you contacted me, and will see what kinds of communication we can get rolling. Does the CMH know that this roundtable exists?


 * Your bibliography would be an awesome addition to what the Center has on its webpage, I will talk to the webpage people about updating it. As you can see all the guard bibliographies are kindof old.


 * Tomorrow, when I get in, I will raise the issue concerning the MUC application. I am sure I will be able to get some help from someone in the center in retrieving the info. I will send you a User e-mail so that you have an e-mail to contact me at. Sadads (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I talked to my supervisor. He gave me some contact information to give to you, which I will forward to you once you respond to the e-mail.


 * Is that bibliography pretty complete, or is there another version which you would like updated to our website? I am sure that we will be able to update the page more in the future as you revise and expand it. Sadads (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories: Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms and Anglo-Saxon England
I disagree with recent edits placing Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms under Anglo-Saxon England rather than vice versa. The Kingdoms category is to capture ALL kingdoms as the top category. While Anglo-Saxon England was an Anglo-Saxon Kingdom, the Heptarchy Kingdoms existed before England, so weren't always part of Anglo-Saxon England.Metabaronic (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was trying to find compromise. The thought was that England is larger than any of the individual kingdoms. Sadads (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is, but that doesn't factor in the time periods as England didn't exist for most of the Anglo-Saxon period.Metabaronic (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * K, just thought that Northumbria was in both, etc. etc. Kindof weird. Sadads (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Re Category:Mercian settlements, I'd deliberately put redirects using the original anglo-saxon names of Mercian settlements into this category. I plan to do the same with other Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. Curdworth and Banbury seem to now buck this trend. Maybe we need a project page to talk about categories and their purposes?Metabaronic (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was operating on the premise suggested here. If you want to make those pages fuller, you should start stub articles in them or use the alternate categorization process as applied at the bottom of Categorizing redirects. It doesn't matter too much to me, just seemed kindof weird in the macro sense and it is really hard to include them in the Quality and Importance assessment logic. It would just make more sense if you started them as stub and use Template:Main in the main articles, copy and pasting whatever information we already have, etc. etc. Make a list as a subpage, and I can start doing that soon. Sadads (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nm, made redirect class, just populate it and we can figure those out later. Sadads (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * where is it?Metabaronic (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * under the class section of the assessment template, write "redirect" Sadads (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ah, gotcha.Metabaronic (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Assessments
Hi Sadads! I just wanted to mention that you've done a few assessments for WikiProject Novels and not struck/commented on the request page. Please try to do this as it makes it easier for other editors to see that the request has been filled. Cheers! PrincessofLlyr royal court 01:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Halkett boat
I have listed the FA status of Halkett boat as needing review. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Beyond Beowulf


The article Beyond Beowulf has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Book does not appear to have significant third-party coverage/notability. Article consists largely of plot summary and OR.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Doniago (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Smithsonian Institute info
Hey hows it going? I noticed you were one of the folks that was working on the Smithsonian collaboration project. Did they ever get back in contact with you? If not I know a few people that work for the museum and I can do some inquiring as well. Is there anytinig in particular we are trying to collaborate with them on or information we are trying to get access too? --Kumioko (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Pharos sent them an e-mail recently but we still haven't heard anything. :-( Pharos and I will definitely keep everyone informed, and the e-mail list that we started at the last meet-up will get forwarded anything significant.  Sadads (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats too bad that they havent gotten back yet. Maybe Ill ask a couple friends if they have any advice on who to contact. By the way I wanted to let you know that I use the CMH info a lot when working on the Medal of Honor recipients and I wanted to say keep up the good work there and any Medal of Honor info you have that could get posted to the CMH site would be put to good use. We should be down to a few recipients from the Civil War soon (all others will have been created) so once we are done creating the articles it will be time to start improving them and building them up. Cheers. --Kumioko (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you all doing this as a concentrated project for the MOH recipients? I noticed that their was a big spike in internal Wikipedia traffic in March. I will tell the Center that you guys really appreciate that info. Sadads (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no project specifically identified for the MOH recipients currently although there are several of us that actively work these articles. If you look at my user page there is a link to a page that I use to manage what articles we have and need, what their current status is, some comments, etc. Just for FYI if your interested, nearly all have structure, infoboxes, portals, references, persondata, have been assessed and have banners on the talk page. There are a few that have been created recently that I am still catching up on but I will get to them in the next couple days. Over half the lists are featured list status, we have several featured images, about 20 articles are Good class or better with several more close to it. Additionally, I police these articles heavily for vandalism, typos, rogue edits, etc as do others so if someone makes inappropriate edits they usually are gone in minutes or less. Please feel free to edit or expand them or let me know if you have any questions or comments about them. --Kumioko (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token ad4b4b5e42215b73fc9aa19416f3b7f1
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Thanks or the Help
Thanks for helping me in being bold. I just wanted to let you know that I went ahead and Edited the Page to have what I thought was needed.--Samurai262 (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleting See also sections as unnecessary
Good day to you. I noticed that you were deleting some see also sections as unnecesary and I wanted to let you know that you should get concensus first before doing that. WP:MOS states under WP:Layout that portals should be placed under the see also section and although I wouldn't advocate adding a See also section just for a portal I also do not think the section should be deleted if the portal is located under it. --Kumioko (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There was nothing there..... Sadads (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I don't understand. There was nothing on the article under the see also section or nothing on the link I sent you? --Kumioko (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the See also, See the edit, Sadads (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The portal was in the see also section before you deleted it. If you look at WP:Layout it states that portals are usually placed under see also. Like I mentioned above I wouldn't add a see also section just for this but Im not sure that deleting the section is the right answer either. To be honest I have seen many articles were placing the portal in the see also section skews the look and flow of the article and I have been known to move them around based on the common sense clause but I have also occasionally been trout slapped for doing it. So although I tend to agree with the logic you are employing I would recommend caution for others may not. --Kumioko (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Common sense here says just use:


 * Star Wars Portal

Rich Farmbrough, 17:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC).


 * huh? Sadads (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Instead of

AEF artist clean-up
Happy to be of help. If you're interested, I use HotCat for making most of my category edits; it's really quite helpful. Saves a lot of work.

Keep up the good work, and happy editing!-- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

New articles
I noticed you have been creating a lot of new articles lately. Good job and keep up the good work on that, however I also noticed that the content is for the most part cut and pasted straight from the ACMH website. Although it is public domain info and freely accessible and distributable, cut and pasting is discouraged, even in Wikipedia, and should be avoided. Not trying to be the copyright cop but eventually someone is going to come across one of these articles and say something, and some editors on here can be a little crass. Cheers --Kumioko (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. – xeno talk 18:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for United States Army Art Program
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/A Treasury of New England Short Stories
Good morning. It looks like the AFD template ate your nom for this article - your nominating statement for this AFD was actually placed in the page title, so I moved it over and deleted the original for you. I also added the text to the nom and transcluded it at WP:AFD. You should be all set. Please let me know if I screwed something up, or if I can be of further assistance. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Meetup/DC_10
Thanks for the alert - not sure yet if I'll be able to make it. I'll try and let you know ASAP. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Assessment
Sadads, My response is WPMILHIST assessment.LeonidasSpartan (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

155th Infantry Regiment (United States)
Just an FYI... you made a typo when you moved Mississippi Rifles to 155th Infantry Regiment (United States) and left off the ")". I finished the move for you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

319th Military Intelligence Battalion
I'm looking into it and it appears that most if not all of the content of 525th Battlefield Surveillance Brigade was created as a copyvio, so that explains why CSBot tagged the page you created this morning. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still trying to see if globalsecurity copied it from a USArmy page to begin with, but I've removed the content from the new page for now. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was just trying to split the 525th article... and bam! bot attack. :( Oh well, at least I have the lineage. Sadads (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, globalsecurity has a habit of copying information from official sites on occasion, so it may be good, I'm just trying to track down an old version of the unit's official webpage and see if it contains the history. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Found it, your page at least is fine so I restored the material and changed the links to point to an archived version of the original Army source. Now I'm looking through the brigade article to see if it's all PD too. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Student group, wikmedia outreach
Hi Sadads, this is Annie Lin, the Campus Team Coordinator for the Wikimedia Foundation. We're really excited about your interest in starting Wikipedia-related student groups on university campuses, and would like to chat about ways we could potentially cooperate. What is your email address, so I can send you more information? Thank you very much. Alin (Public Policy) (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 63rd Chemical Company (United States)


The article 63rd Chemical Company (United States) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * In accodance with Articles for deletion/722nd Ordnance Company (United States) and Articles for deletion/101st Chemical Company (United States), which established that non-combat separate companies are not notable, and Articles for deletion/609th Air Communications Squadron, which established that non-combat air force ground support squadrons are not notable, these type of units, are not individually notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Sadads, thanks for your hard work on various U.S. Army regiments and battalions, but company level units are not usually deemed notable - see the deletion debate going on right for the 295th Ordnance Heavy Maintenance Company (FA). Please do not create any more articles for company level units. Please incorporate the relevant information into articles about their parent battalions or other higher headquarters. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of 54th Military Police Company (United States)
I have nominated 54th Military Police Company (United States), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/54th Military Police Company (United States). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello.
Just stopping by to connect. Let me know if any workshops or the like come up. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

SI Artifact category
As you have already seen I created the category for SI artifacts. Thanks for the adjustments in the verbiage BTW. I included a couple for aircraft that the SI has the only existing one or for a couple of animals at the zoo but other than those exceptions I think I got most of the main ones. --Kumioko (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done. I'd suggest a separate category for animals, though. "Artifacts" doesn't sound quite right for pandas. Cheers! bd2412  T 04:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your right, ill refine that tomorrow. Gotta get to bed. --Kumioko (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Recognizing The Recognitions
Thank you for your speedy work in giving The Recognitions the high importance rating it deserves. I think this is one of the moments you hope for when you work on Wikipedia, judging from the New York Times article linked to your profile.

I haven't read The Recognitions but I have read most of JR. It is complex, electrifying, wildly funny... incredible. In fact, if you gave a copy without a title page to someone and told him, "this book was written last year. It's about life in 2009: multitasking, the Internet, the craziness on Wall Street, but the author set the story in 1970 for some reason" ... he would read it and believe you.Promking (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no problem. Feel free to |Be bold!!!! and make changes when you think that someone has overlooked something. And by the way, remember to sign discussions on talk pages with ~ Sadads (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! I came back and signed it.Promking (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

GLAM/SI
I just wanted to pop in, introduce myself and express my interest in GLAM/SI. I am from the DC area and I'm interested in being involved in your project, but I now live in Indy so it'd be more computer-based stuff rather than meet-ups. Didn't know if I should necessarily sign up as a Member but wanted to let you know GLAM/SI is on my watch list and I'd like to stay in the loop. Quick overview of me: I'm very interested in GLAM-Wiki relations and have been following User:Witty lama's work with the BM closely. I'm a project leader with Wikipedia Saves Public Art and I'm hoping to take on a Wikipedian in Residence gig (on a MUCH smaller scale) at The Children's Museum of Indianapolis this fall. Thanks! HstryQT (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am looking forward to working with you . We will be doing alot of work with the National Museum of the American Indian at frirst and they have programs all over the us so we may need help from users all over the US. Will talk to you more later. Sadads (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC) (edit from nook)

Several questions on the GLAM SI page
I left several questions for clarification on the GLAM SI talk page if you have a chance could you take a look and let me know what you think? --Kumioko (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: Reference Fixing
Sadads, Did you get tired and need a nap?

Did you look at what you changed?

Your "fix":

Gives this: ^ "Error: no |title=  specified when using ". United States Army Center of Military History. http://www.history.army.mil/html/moh/wwII-a-f.html.

1) "Crain, Morris E." should be "author=" 2) "Medal of Honor recipients: World War II (A-F)" should be in the "title=" section 3) Also, I recommend that you do a space then pipe ("|") then no spaces. Like this: It breaks up the sections in a clear, decipherable manner, but also does not take up to much extra character space. Either way, don't forget to check your work.

THNKS. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, been doing lots of different types of template lately. I was moving pretty quick. Sadads (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe you need one of those bots? Or a macro key?  Or something to eat? > Best O Fortuna (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting suggestion..... Sadads (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Editing as a member of a cultural organisation
Hello

Thankyou very much for your help i will read those pages and get on with a declaration of a conflict of interest Benjamw (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Sadads
Thanks for the welcome. Editing the Gulf War page is challenge because almost nobody knows about the diplomatic offers that came from the Iraqi side. As such, this requires an extensive amount of referencing. I dont mind it (I only wish that such rigorous sourcing was demanded of "safe" edits. Maybe you can help me out. I have two PDFs of the two Newsday articles that I use for reference, would you like them? I can upload them somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phooey108 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: WP:GLAM/SI invite
Cool, thanks for the assurance. The list of activities didn't seem to have an obvious place for me but I'll trust what you said at the meetup. If there's stuff I can do, I'd love to and I'm sure it'll be fun. --Qwerty0 (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Reconnaissance companies of the United States Marine Corps
I placed this category for deletion in Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 3. I believe it is way too narrow in scope. FieldMarine (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Rollback
Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:
 * Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
 * Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
 * Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
 * Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
 * Please read Help:Reverting and Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
 * You can test Rollback at New admin school/Rollback
 * You may wish to display the User wikipedia/rollback userbox and/or the Rollback top icon on your user page
 * If you have any questions, please do let me know.

-- HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As Regards "Category:History of fashion"
Hi, interesting point. I only just started categorizing military clothing, which I thought fit the definition as cited in the category of "modern clothing from the post-WWII era to the present", particularly since military uniforms have been sources of numerous fashion styles since World War II.Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Because, I blush to admit, it hadn't occurred to me to do so and save myself the trouble. Thank you for the suggestion.  Although I am not, as you first mistook me for, a new editor, I am also not as sophisticated as I could be in Wikipedia editing.  As far as that goes, by the way, I have no user page because I have long felt that Wikipedia isn't about me.  I do apologise if I have cluttered up the category with less-than-useful entries.Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (Sorry, I just realised I probably just accidentally categorised your page and so changed the punctuation in the headline)Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Single entry categories
Please do not create categories that have only one entry, as per the MP and maintenance company categories you've created. At least three are really required, otherwise they can all go in the higher category. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please also be more careful with your creation of categories. C Company, 52nd Infantry Regiment is a regular army unit, not a National Guard unit. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have been trying to disperse the populations of really large categories in the Military units and formations, and I have been creating categories with one or two members, because eventually their will be enough units to fill the categories because of the size and number of units in the US Army. I am only doing this with standard unit types. Sadads (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The message is, DO NOT DO THIS WITH COMPANIES! Battalions, yes, Brigades, yes, Divisions, yes, etc. But we are slowly deleting and merging all but very notable companies, because in general, they are not notable. The only really notable companies are possibly E-506 INF, due to the television series, and possibly the 507th Maintenance Company. Given the one or two companies that will remain after the process finishes, the most categories we need are maybe one category for ARNG and another for regular Army. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't know we were trying to upmerge companies. Sadads (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please refer to the deletion debate on the two 'special designation' companies, where you will see the rationale and the original AfDs, Articles for deletion/54th Military Police Company (United States). Buckshot06 (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw that but didn't realize that ruling effected all current company units.

Sadads (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It affects all separate non-combat companies, as explained in the original nominations for the 722nd Ord Co and the 101st Chem Co. The original discussion referred to a military police company, the 39th. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

SI/GLAM
thanks for the invite. i've started combing through assessing articles, most have ones from other projects. is there a team, group for this? Accotink2 (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * that first BLP was easy, but there isn't much material on the others, surprised there isn't more oral history. will try a sweep. Accotink2 (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Might bet is that somewhere deep in the Smithsonian webpages there is information on most of those people. Also scholarly articles might have alot. Sadads (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks for the counciling, the full blown warnings are more amusing than distressing. Enola Gay is in need of an assessment; improvement.  seems like a B to me, not a start, and this one would be a good candidate for featured article treatment. Accotink2 (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with the Enola Gay is the sourcing, don't think it has quite enough footnotes for B, especially considering how much scholarship ought to be out there right now. Actually that fits more of a C class, because of the sourcing. Definitely would be a great candidate for collaboration. Sadads (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * we agree, the other problem is you get a lot of nuclear pov, edit warring, and vandalism: "As a result of the earlier controversy, the signage around the aircraft provides only the same succinct technical data as is provided for other aircraft in the museum, without discussion of the controversial issues." ..."repetition of the vandalism " Accotink2 (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

410th expeditionary wing cat removals
Greetings - why did you remove the 4 valid categories for the 410th? Thanks Srobak (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been dispersing articles from the overpopulated categories and subcategories of Category:Military units and formations of the United States Air Force to smaller more directly relevant sub-categories which keep the units in the correct (explore the category hierarchy below). If I removed too many on that article, I apologize, however, too many big categories on pages just makes them confusing, see WP:OC and WP:SUBCAT, and the Air Force unit categories are in very bad shape. Sadads (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Frank Baldwin
Thanks, yeah theres a lot like that and some even worse. --Kumioko (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Mexican War
Thanks for your input. It's been unpleasant--but enlightening--to experience how editors here wrangle, but you're right that on a minor issue such as this, it's best to move on if no consensus is forthcoming. BTW, your comments don't appear on the discussion page as it now stands, but only in a previous edit. Bakesnobread (talk) 08:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sir John Jervis
I'm working on the sources.

I find it difficult to translate from regular article to wikipedia. Just thought I'd get up what I'd done so far and work on it as it goes.

If that's ok?
 * Yes that is fine. If you need any help, I can help you work with the templates, but WP:Inline citations are of paramount importance for maintaining quality of content. Sadads (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Will do. I've almost done with Tucker but haven't even touched on the Naval Chronicle or Clowes or James yet. I also want to add a small section about Cochrane (because of his popularity) and need to re-read his biographies although I think I'll stick with Cordingly because his is the most objective. I should (real life and wife) permitting be done by the end of this week.
 * Sounds good, I will be gone all of next week, so no rush (that being said I am sure some other people would be willing to review it as well). And don't forget to sign with ~ after your comments on discussion pages. Sadads (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Basically I'm done. I want to add a few mor citations but I think the bulk of the article is ready for review. Enjoy Corneredmouse (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize ahead of time if I do not get to reviewing this this week, I am going backpacking all of next week and have a series of evening engagements over the next several days, including a meeting with several Foundation employees. If I do not finish reviewing by the end of the week, I promise I will finish it up the first week of August. Much of my daytime editing needs to be work related, sorry. Sadads (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries. It's done when it's done and I'm in no hurry. If you want to pass it on elewhere, I won't be offended. Corneredmouse (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I like Jervis alot, think he is a really interesting charachter, and I think Patrick O'Brian treats him interestingly. So I would love to review it, however, you can also bring it up at WikiProject Military history/British military history task force and WikiProject Military history/Napoleonic era task force and see if either task force has some interested reviewers. Sadads (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I wanted to do some work on a sandbox but couldn't work out how to create one. Can you advise? Thanks, Corneredmouse (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. Really appreciate your help. Corneredmouse (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Military History Detachment
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Civil affairs units and formations of the United States Marine Corps
I'm proposing that the above category be deleted as it only contains 2 articles & their are only 2 CAGs in the entire Marine Corps so there is little chance for growth beyond two. See Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 15. I've noticied several categories created of esoteric units with only a handful of articles with little room for growth. FieldMarine (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I responded at the discussion. Sadads (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

434th Bombardment Squadron
Please note that articles are not allowed to have redlinked categories (i.e. categories that don't already exist) sitting on them. There is no category for. If there should be, you're always free to create it, but until you've actually done so the 434th must remain in the category which does exist, which is. You're not at liberty to change any article's category to "Bombardment squadrons" until a category for bombardment squadrons actually exists. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, put the wrong category:should have been bomber squadrons. Thanks, Sadads (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, fair enough. I just made the intended change for you instead. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Online Ambassador application
Hi Sadads! I wanted to let you know that instructions are now up to apply for the Online Ambassadors program. Your thoughts on the questionnaire itself would also be handy, since that is still possibly under revision. Cheers!--Sross (Public Policy) (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ready First Combat Team
Greetings Sadads, I'm in the brigade public affairs office for 1/1 AD (Ready First Combat Team). Yes you are correct that our special designation is "Forerunners". However, the name "Ready First Combat Team" has a much more significant attachment to the Brigade. The original RFCT was 1/3AD. When the 3rd Armored Division was shut down post Gulf War I, the soldiers of that unit reflagged to 1AD. The soldiers of 1/3AD became 1/1AD and kept the traditions of 1/3 with the name Ready First Combat Team. I know your thinking, that still doesn't change the fact the official name is "Forerunners". Well, the RFCT was the brigade incharge of AR Ramadi during the surge. Brigade Commander COL MacFarland, now BG MacFarland, was the responsible for working with the local tribal leadership to bring them to the table, starting the 'Anbar Awakening'. The Ready First Combat Team, at that time the size of a short division made up of marines and soldiers, played indescribably important part in the success of the surge and the peace that has resulted. Through all this, in the press and on all monuments, memorials, and citations, 1/1 AD is referred to as "The Ready First Combat Team". There have been no less than 5 books written about this brigade and its successes in OIF, including one that just came out and is reviewed in a recent 'army times' article. Through all this, 1/1 AD is referred to as "The Ready First Combat Team". My extreme desire is that if you search for "Ready First" in wikipedia, it does not return a plethora of unrelated articles. I have even see RFCT in the glossary of some army manuals defining it as: Ready First Combat team, 1st Brigade of the 1st Armored Division.

I see you are working for CMH. I have been in contact with Frank Shirer from CMH while doing research for a documentary I am doing on the brigade. I have inquired on how to officially change our special designation to Ready First. Until that time, I feel that it is more relevant in a historical sense to label the brigade as "Ready First" even though the process to change the official title has not yet concluded.

Thank you for your consideration

SGT Mac 16:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DocHellfish (talk • contribs)
 * Here is my suggestion to stay within the wikipedia verifiability standards: use both Ready First and Forerunners until the official name is changed, each referenced to the appropriate sources and then when it changes, remove the one that is less pertinent. Are you sure that Ready first is not already your Motto, according to http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/orghist.html#tab_4 their often be confusion between the two. Sadads (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the difference. During my time in 2-3 Inf Regt, I learned how our designation is 'The Old Guard' and the motto is 'Noli Me tengere' (Don't tread on me). 1/1 AD does not have a motto. I walk past our lineage certificate every morning. How should I format it on the page for both names?" DocHellfish (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For pages that I have encounter both Special Designations and the other I do something like " "Forerunners" (Special Designation) and "Ready First" " with a reference after the parenthesis and then a reference after the second nickname using.


 * On another note, if you are editing for your unit, you may want to create a conflict of interest statement like my own and use your signed in account that way users like myself will not think that you are a fan or enemy of the unit making changes arbitrarily. We like people with invested interests to edit as long as they are clear why their editing. The best behavior for those people is not editing with the primary intention of making the organization look better.  Sadads (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I shall do as you suggest. Incidentally, since there is already a page mentioning the brigade, does that prevent me from doing a seperate page for the RFCT? If not, how do I reference the history? What I have to go off is a narrative sent to me by the division historian & museum curator

DocHellfish (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not at all, if you want to see examples of similar BCT pages check out the pages linked at Category:Brigade combat teams of the United States Army. The best example is 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team. If you are using text written by an army historian make sure you use Template:PD-USGov-Military-Army with the variables filled in. And if you can try to do as many WP:Inline citations as you can. Keep me informed and I can help develop the page. You have to remember though: once you are on Wikipedia your job isn't to create a good face for the BCT but instead create a page meeting WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutrality standards. Also, if you are going to make a page for the BCT you must do a WP:COI statement. I can help with all steps of this. Sadads (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A Suggestion for an Article
You need to start an article on the 103rd FA Brigade, Rhode Island National Guard. It has a very good history that dates back through the Civil War. Would attempt it myself but I have enought problems with my current creations. I do have quite a bit of information on their OIF deployments that I would gladly contribute. Damon.cluck (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't have a lineage online yet, I will ask around though. I think they are inactive, so that doesn't quite fall into the scope of what I am doing right now. If you want to start the article, I will gladly review/improve it. Also, you might want to engage other members of the US military task force, Sadads (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The brigade isn't active but 1st Battalion is. I started it in my sandbox a while ago, but never finished it. Their Battery A was a mobilized with the 1st Battalion, 206th Field Artillery during OIF II.  One of our medic's won the Silver Star attempting to rescue one of their personnel that was killed in a fire fight south of Camp Taji.   This is one of the reasons I disagree with Wikipedia's policy of not allowing articles on separate companies.  Many company/battery/troop size units are being mobilized for GWOT away from their organic HQ, and their attached HQ's do a horrible job of accounting for their history.  If you research Battery A, 1st Battalion, 103rd FA, you will find that during the War of Northern Agression, they also fought a separate batteries.18:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Damon.cluck (talk)
 * Where is the draft? I can clean it up and we could deploy it sometime soonish, get it DYK'ed if you want. It is always good to get Drafts deployed or they will sit in your user pages and never get used,Sadads (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Damon.cluck/103rd Field Artillery Regiment (United States)Damon.cluck (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * K will see if I can find some more sources tomorrow and we will work up a separate draft that meets WP:Verifiability. BTW, do you want 206th Field Artillery Regiment (United States) copy-edited, I know a couple good copy-editors? Sadads (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes thanks. I know I am all over the board on spelling out unit names, 3rd Arkansas or Third Arkansas. The 103rd FA was the First Rhode Island Light Artillery during the Civil War.Damon.cluck (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

GLAM/SI event
Yes, I'm available both the 13th and the 19th, anytime.

I'm inclined not to be a presenter, simply because I'd like others to have the experience. What I would like to do is be involved in a practice session, or two - and by practice session, I mean a full rehearsal. That's important for a number of reasons - to make presenters more comfortable, to identify possible minor glitches, to get the time right (presentations seem to inevitably run long, which means whatever is planned to happen at the end gets squeezed, even if it's more important than earlier stuff).

So I think we should look for one or two other people to help with the presentation (SwatJester, for example) - and we should schedule a full rehearsal far enough in advance so that if it goes poorly, there is time to do it again.

And yes, I'll be happy to be respond to any emails that pop up next week, or any issues that arise then - I hope you have a very enjoyable backpacking trip. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)