User talk:TabooTikiGod/Archieve1

The Old Guard
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia, TabooTikiGod! I have noted that you made a good-faith edit with regard to the 3rd United States Infantry Regiment article. You moved this article to the title of 3rd Infantry Regiment (United States) per the renaming guidelines of the MILHISTWP. In most cases, this would have been just fine. However, the 3rd US Infantry is uniquely named: it's official name is the 3rd United States Infantry Regiment. "United States" is not a country designator in this case, it is actually part of the unit's official name. This dates back to the Civil War when units in America had to be distinguished between United States units or Confederate units. This particular unit has maintained the "United States" designator as part of its official title and removing that or switching it around results in an innaccuraely named U.S. unit. An administrator will change it back, so no further action is required on your part. I just wanted you to be aware that there are a few exceptions to the naming conventions that have been hashed out and rehashed out; this is just one of them. I appreciate your willingness to help the project, regardless. Keep up the good work and be sure and sign up for the MILHISTWP and a few of its task forces, if you're interested. --ScreaminEagle 17:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My response to this argument (TabooTikiGod)


 * Thank you for your observations ScreaminEagle, however I would point out to you and other Wikipedians who have particular concern in reference to the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment's name. The name of a Wikipedia article versus an official title of a person, place, thing, idea, etc. may vary and do not necessarily coincide with one another. If that were the case, then none of the U.S. military units listed would have (United States) following the name of the article.  For example, 1st Infantry Division (United States), 7th Cavalry Regiment (United States), 173rd Airborne Brigade (United States), III Corps (United States) and so forth.  This is merely done for organizational purposes and therefore does not reflect the official title of the unit.  This particular Regiment should not be any different nor treated as a special case than the rest of the U.S. Army units and organizations on Wikipedia. -TabooTikiGod 18:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * To further support my reasoning of this issue, although The Old Guard's official website has the title header as 3d United States Infantry Regiment, however, many of the articles within the official website describe the unit as 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard) .  Furthermore, the official unit's association The Old Guard Association  refers the unit as 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment.  Additionally, the United States Center of Military History (USACMH) Lineage and Honors Information of the unit describes it simply as 3d Infantry  which is dated 22 May 1997 which is, I might add, is the U.S. Army's official military history resource which supercedes the unit's history which reflects the organization's official lineage.  In conclusion, there are many different reliable and official resources which one can draw from and list as a resource and argue what the "official name" of the unit is.  Even in trying to accomplish this task, there are many contradictions and misnomers for the unit known as The Old Guard.  Again, I would reinforce the effort to rename the article as 3rd Infantry Regiment (United States) to rectify this situation. -TabooTikiGod 18:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed the name of the article in good will and was not meant as a malicious act or meant to upset the Wikipedia community, particularly the members of the MILHISTWP. The act of changing the article was done with logic and reason which I have provided my thought process and showed concrete evidence to further explain and support my claim. -TabooTikiGod 19:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You're a bit late on the discussion of this Taboo. The move has been made and remade and remade yet again. If you've read the previous arguments, it's not a matter of what you're reading into it. It's not a naming convention issue either. It's the official name of the unit. Trust me. It was my unit from 1991-1994. I know from firsthand experience what the official name is.

I have changed it to reflect the CORRECT name. Please do not change it again. Thank you.Ryecatcher773 20:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Even claiming to have been part of the organization does not make yourself a source, nor does it give you any right to change the name of the article on Wikipedia. It is a bias view and is against Wiki policy. -TabooTikiGod 20:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note for anyone interested: there's a version of this discussion at WT:MILHIST as well. Kirill 20:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting that the naming convention for military units does, in fact, call for the official name to be used where possible: "An article about a military unit or formation should be placed at 'Name of unit (optional disambiguator)'. The name should generally be the official name used by the armed forces to which the unit belongs, or, for units that do not have an official name, the most common name used in historical literature." Rearranging the order of words in the name to fit an arbitrary pattern is not necessarily appropriate; we would not, for example, have The Royal Canadian Regiment at The Royal Regiment (Canada) merely because the term is a country name.
 * Note, also, that the more natural in-text version of "X Regiment (United States)" is "United States X Regiment", which is not the same as "X United States Regiment". While there are several variations of the regiments name used in literature, they are all derivatives of the latter form rather than the former; so it is quite legitimate to argue that it is the "proper" name of the unit. Kirill 20:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Quoting from the guidelines of the MILHISTWP, there lies the problem. I understand your argument in reference to The Royal Canadian Regiment but this is not the same case nor the same argument.  I have already outlined various official sources for the "official name" of the unit that is commonly refered to as The Old Guard.  I have already listed official and credible sources that have legitimate claim via internet websites.  Ultimately (and legally), the source of the official name of the organization would come from directly from the original orders which were published by the United States Army that perscribed the formation of the unit.  Which can be directly sourced from the United States Army's Center of Military History website which is dated 22 May 1997. http://www.army.mil/cmh/html/forcestruc/lineages/branches/inf/0003in.htm  "Consolidated May-October 1815 with the 5th Infantry (constituted 12 April 1808), the 17th Infantry (constituted 11 January 1812), the 19th Infantry (constituted 26 June 1812), and the 28th Infantry (constituted 29 January 1813) to form the 3d Infantry" This I might add, has not been modified nor changed since 1997 and unless further official publishing orders by the United States Army can be produced after 1997 then it remains as the official name of the organization.  This is the official name of the unit 3d Infantry.  I would also note that it is not unique that the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment has "U.S." associated with it's name since all Union organizations during the American Civil War had the "U.S." following the numerical number of the unit followed by the type of unit:  7th U.S. Cavalry Regiment, 1st U.S. Dragoons, etc. in order to distinguish between federal and state militias (14th Pennsylvania Infantry, 54th Massachusetts Infantry, etc.).  Therefore the argument of 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment or 3rd United States Infantry Regiment is not unique to just The Old Guard but to all United States Army units that can trace it's lineage to the American Civil War which fought on the Union side. -TabooTikiGod 20:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting point. I'll admit that I don't know enough about the arcana of US military lineage to make an intelligent decision as to how authoritative the CMH site is relative to the regiment's own site.  There are several possibilities here as to which name the US Army currently uses for the regiment (which may not necessarily be the same as the name the regiment uses internally, to boot); the question of which name is more official is probably best left to experts in this particular topic area. Kirill 20:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If I interpet correctly, the guidelines perscribed by MILHISTWP on Wikipedia, then it would appear that the official name of the organization supercedes the common name used in historical literature. Which would be 3d Infantry, not 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment or 3rd United States Infantry Regiment.  I assure you that the United States Army Center of Military History is the authority when it comes to unit lineage and honors as it is outlined on the the CMH website:
 * Force Structure and Unit History Branch http://www.army.mil/cmh/unitinfo.html
 * Organizational History http://www.army.mil/cmh/html/forcestruc/orghist.html
 * Combat Arms Regimental System (CARS) http://www.army.mil/cmh/html/forcestruc/cars.html
 * United States Army online regulatory authorities as perscribed in a U.S. Army Regulation - The U.S. Army Regimental System (AR 600-82) 5 June 1990 http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r600_82.pdf
 * I have provided numerous sources on the authority and authentization from credible official U.S. Army websites that argument my point clearly which is outlined on the U.S. Army Center of Military History website and in AR 600-82 which is the United States Army's Regimental System which is an Army Regulation. On page 23, it clearly shows the organization, under the CARS as 3rd Infantry (0003IN)1.  -TabooTikiGod 21:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Duly noted; based on those documents, the argument that the "3rd Infantry Regiment" is the current official name seems a reasonable one. The remaining questions, I suppose, would be twofold: is this a new official name, or one that has been around for some time, and why, in either case, does it appear to differ from the regiment's internal usage?  (Obviously, we seem to have former members of the unit that recall "3rd United States Infantry Regiment" in official use on their own orders; so I would assume there's something to this beyond a discrepancy on the sites themselves.) Kirill 21:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, since 29 January 1813, it's always been 3d Infantry when the unit was constituted. I've provided Army Regulation that perscribes the Army's stance under the Regimental System in 1990 and 1997 (which to my knowledge there is no newer updates to AR 600-82 or the lineage and honors for the 3d Infantry unless proven otherwise).  As far as the "internal usage," I've already provided articles which the unit's Public Affairs Office (PAO) has published articles within the website that describes the organization as 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard) http://www.army.mil/oldguard/stories/aug142007.html  So even within the unit's official website the organization's "common name" varies.  One Wikipedia user who claims to have been a former member of the unit does not constitute leverage over this argument.  The user Ryecatcher773 did not provide any substansial reason or support other than claiming that he was a former member of the unit (which again is irrelavent to the arguement and does not give him and "authority" over the matter). -TabooTikiGod 22:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that I've provided enough intelligent reason and logic and credible resources via the internet to close out this arguement. Is there a final resolution to this matter? -TabooTikiGod 22:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * NO. Look, I've tried to be polite and nice, keeping this private and such, but you've hauled out every conversation right into the open.  Fine.  So be it.  You have relied on only one source, the Center for Military History, which I hate to point out can sometimes be incomplete, especially given the amount of information they must deal with and the very, very few volunteers they have to sort it all out.  On the other hand, we have the official webpage of the unit itself, along with its mother unit, the MDW, which claims the EXACT same thing as the regiment.  And giving the argument that sometimes it's 3rd United States and sometimes it's 3rd U.S. is ludicrous.  U.S. is an abbreviation for United States, so both are correct but one is more complete. And simply because you think you've argued this case well enough in your own mind does not mean you're correct.  I would rather rely on the Army unit itself, which has told me personally, that its official name is the 3rd United States Infantry Regiment, rather than an editor like yourself who may not know a thing other than how to navigate the CMH website.  Feel free to give the unit a call and see if they tell you the same thing they told me.  Until then, there is no resolution on this other than what had been agreed upon previously.  --ScreaminEagle 22:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ScreaminEagle, I personally do not like behind the scene conversations in reference to a discussion. Secondly, if you had actually read through the USACMH website and how the organization operates in reference to the CARS, lineage and honors and the AR 600-82, you would have noticed which is an official Army Regulation (not CMH) does have authority over the actual unit and the webmasters of the organizations and even the parent organization (Military District of Washington) website.  Unlike yourself, I've actually provided real sources that can be accessed via web and is open source.  Like I said, the legal authority of the "official name" is written in the publishing orders in which the organization was constituted.  29 January 1813.  Even if you did contact the unit and had a memorandum from the Regimental Commander himself with signature, does that have any authority over the way in which the United States Army interprets the official history of a unit which is viewed by the entire United States Army?  For your information, I happen to know a soldier who is in the Headquarters and Headquarters Company for the 1st Battalion in the Regimental Headquarters Public Affairs Office (PAO).  If you would like, I can get an official memorandum dated, signed with proper heading and title of a statement by their office claiming the official name of the organization, have it scanned, upload it to Wikipedia and then publish it on this page. -TabooTikiGod 22:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Any such discussion typically takes at least a few days to coagulate around a rough consensus; proclaiming a "final resolution" after a few hours would be pretty unprecedented (doubly so when there have only been two people participating ;-). I'd like to see, at the very least, some editors with more experience in this topic area comment.
 * We're in no real rush, in any case; the project will be no worse off if we move the article next week than if we move it today. Kirill 22:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't it true that Wikipedia is not a democracy? And how the guidelines are interpreted by the administrators?  I see the logic in having a general consenses to avoid edit wars or socket puppet vandals.  Whether or not there's enough interest from other users to weigh in on this discussion should be interesting since probably most people throughout the world (and even within the United States or for that matter, the United States Army) have enough background knowledge or "expertise" to make a call.  In any case, it should be interesting. -TabooTikiGod 22:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I will also note that if all units were to be and I quote: "An article about a military unit or formation should be placed at 'Name of unit (optional disambiguator)'. The name should generally be the official name used by the armed forces to which the unit belongs, or, for units that do not have an official name, the most common name used in historical literature." Then all U.S. Army units on Wikipedia would have to be changed, since they are not known as 1st Infantry Division (United States) but simply as 1st Infantry Division. -TabooTikiGod 20:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously the "(United States)" isn't part of the name; it's the optional disambiguator. Kirill 20:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I reverted the name of the article back to 3rd Infantry Regiment (United States) since the user Ryecatcher773 failed to list his reasoning or logic in response to what I have said in response to changing the article. -TabooTikiGod 20:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Unwise Move
Hey Kirill. I don't know any other admins who would know about this, hence why you've been pegged. A concerned editor has moved 3rd United States Infantry Regiment to 3rd Infantry Regiment (United States). From past experience, I know I can't move it back without causing some sort of meltdown in Wikipedia's main reactor, so could you please do it for me? In the mean time I will leave a note for the editor explaining the issue (even though the unique unit's name has been discussed to death even inside the article itself). Many, many thanks. --ScreaminEagle 17:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AScreaminEagle&diff=156998134&oldid=156983462

Re: Unwise Move
Oh no, not again! ;-)

But I think I'll let the discussion on WT:MILHIST play out for a bit before moving it back, so as not to risk devolving into a revert war on the thing. Kirill 20:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Although it seems that someone else has moved it back anyways, making the point rather moot. Kirill 20:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKirill_Lokshin&diff=156963558&oldid=156915698

Response by Ryecatcher773
I moved it earlier, and Tiki moved it again. Look, this was something that we cleared up months ago before he/she came along and decided -- against the arguments that were already made -- to change it. I don't even think he/she has even read he arguments, otherwise he/she would understand that this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Wikipedia naming conventions for military units.

Bottom line -- this was settled a while ago. I don't care what someone who was not in The Old Guard 's opinion is on what the right convention is. The way it is listed now is completely inaccurate. It needs to be moved back to 3rd US Infantry. I'll go to war over it. It was my unit, and it's my honor to defend it. Ryecatcher773 00:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I refuse to get into an edit war with you over the title. I've presented an intelligent argument that has support and reasoning behind it, I would hope that other Wikipedians and administrators can examine this discussion by interpreting the guidelines and the facts without personal bias towards the subject. -TabooTikiGod 11:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Photograph of Coax M240
Hello, you made a change to the M240 article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M240_machine_gun&diff=156986310&oldid=156977213 The caption which you changed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:M240_Coax_on_USMC_LAV.jpg was directly copy and pasted from the Department of Defense's website: http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DefenseLINK_Search/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=DMSD0001277&JPGPath=/Assets/Still/2000/Marines/DM-SD-00-01277.JPG Even though this weapon clearly has a pintle and is mounted where the commander's gun would normally sit, it is not clear whether or not this weapon was moved into position in order to more effectively clean the M240, since you were not the photographer of this image nor the Marine in the photograph. You can't stake this claim and say with 100% certainty what the photograph is showing is indeed a M240E1 or is indeed is not the coax machine gun; therefore we must rely on the official caption of the photograph. Please do not change the captions from official DoD photographs. -TabooTikiGod 19:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, the official USMC line on the LAV-25 is that it has a single M240 coaxial machine gun, and a single M240E1 machine gun mounted on a pintle. I don't care what the official DoD caption says, they're not always right, its mounted on a pintle about the turret, which violates any standard definition of "coaxial" when talking about AFVs.  I changed it for specifically that reason.  The caption is confusing because its inaccurate.  -- Thatguy96 21:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I will not argue that the DoD is always 100% correct when it comes to captions however in this case, I feel that it is unclear and not without uncertainty that you can guarantee that it is for one a M240E1 and not a M240 nor if it's indeed the coax or not. -TabooTikiGod 21:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You can debate whether its an M240 or E1 or another variant, that's fine. Its unclear because the weapon is partially diassembled.  However, it is clearly not the coaxial gun, because it is mounted in the pintle above the turret.  The coaxial gun on any AFV is mounted coaxially with the main gun.  The coaxial MG on the LAV-25 is in the turret, coaxial to the 25mm M242 Bushmaster cannon.  I see absolutely no scenario where the coaxial gun would be mounted in the turret pintle for servicing.  -- Thatguy96 21:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you see the M242 Bushmaster cannon in this photograph? I think not.  It is feasible that the weapon was put on the pintle for easier access for cleaning and maintenance.  The evidence of this photograph can not be argued for or against this fact.  Like I said, the only thing we can go off is the from the caption.  -TabooTikiGod 21:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

2/34 Brigade Combat Team
This is the 2nd Bde Combat Team of the 34th Infantry Division, NOT 2nd Battalion, 34th Brigade! Please check it out more clearly next time. Cheers Buckshot06 20:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This article 2nd Brigade, 34th Infantry Division (United States) is a stub and it wasn't clear whether or not this organization was a Battalion (BN) or Brigade (BDE) or Brigade Combat Team (BCT). Thank you for bringing this to my attention and correcting the mistake.  -TabooTikiGod 20:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a worry. A good thing to think about before you consider making such changes again is running a google search; usually clears things up. Also I've just made some modifications to 130th Engineer Brigade (United States); the Brigade is not at Lewis, it's inactive pending a move to Hawaii, and you actually quoted some '2008' dates incorrectly from the linked story. Great work on removing the copy and paste, but please be a little more careful in reading the source next time. Sorry to keep raining on your parade. Cheers Buckshot06 21:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't the user who made the changes to add the story. Please make sure to verify your history log before making accusations.  Thanks -TabooTikiGod 05:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

New Comment On Oct 21 2007
I believe that the way it should be done for Wikipedia is to be as explicit as possible. For example "U.S." can be expanded more explicitly to say "United States" Even if the actual military unit does not call itself "...United States", it would still be acceptable and commendable to call it that on the wiki, because that is what it means. To have so much discussion over such a small difference in terminology is childish. -Michael J  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.18.114 (talk) 09:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation
I am requesting that agreeing parties demand my mandatory joinder in this dispute resolution process, as I have verifiable secondary-source evidence found in a location provided by you that relates to the determination of the outcome of mediation. Hotfeba 23:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a problem, your requestion for mediation is welcomed. Unless all parties agree under the section [|Parties Agreement to Mediate] the request for mediation will be cancelled. -TabooTikiGod 11:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.