User talk:bahamut0013/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Congratulations

I see you been promoted to the rank of Sergeant, congrats! I just moved up also, as a Staff Sergeant in the Air Force. I'm due back from deployment in less then 50 days from SW Asia. --Dandvsp (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

CDA

Important notice about VOTE 3 in the CDA poll

You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.

It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).

As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!

Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA

Hi Bahamut,

you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?

As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?

Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) How to help:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

• Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".

• In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).

• Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Tanks in the Spanish Navy

I was referring to the armor used by the Spanish Navy Marines, yes. The reason why I didn't include them in the article is that I could not find enough reliable information on them (I lost an article I acquired about two years ago, that I could have used). JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

James M. Masters, Sr.

Could you please contact me on my talk page, regarding the so-called 'minor edit' you made to my new article on James M. Masters, Sr.. I'll leave a message there for Bahamut0013. Thanks. --Man on the Roof (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If I have formatted this message improperly (due to my wiki inexperience), I hope you will still read and appreciate its content.

This seems to be an issue of form (your side) vs content (my side). Is there a middle ground where we can meet?

I'm James M. Masters, Jr. aka 'Champ' Masters. In my 71st year, I am the oldest living expert on the life of James M. Masters, Sr. -- and yes, I possess numerous historical US Marine photos and documents relating to my dad's life and USMC career... more than 75 of which I was prepared to donate via Wikipedia to the Internet.

But, several online critics of the 'wild west' wiki community made me fearful of how the bio would fare, so I placed only Part One of JMMSr's bio (in which just few of my original photos [and no documents], appeared) in my wiki user space, and I requested comments on 22 December 2009 -- as a way of gauging whether or not those wiki critics have/had legitimacy...

Since no significant comments were forthcoming (for a couple of weeks), from my general 'wiki request for comments', I began to feel the bio had found a home -- and that I could complete it at Wiki while continuing to donate all the other photos and documents. So, I moved the bio to 'live' wiki space on 11 January. And still, no significant comments were forthcoming from the wiki community. But then, on 18 January, I made the mistake (?) of paying you a courtesy that resulted in your so-called gnomish edit -- which neutered or completely removed portions of the bio's body text where I planned to 'hang' photos. (For example, a photo of FDR with JMMSr at his side.) The bio in its entirety needs meaningful bio-body text -- in order to 'hang' the remaining 75+ photos and documents. If you are simply going to delete or neuter such text, the photos/documents are without purpose -- and I should retain them.

If, in your opinion, there is not an acceptable middle ground for us, would you be kind enough to recommend a Wiki alternative where my dad's USMC bio, photos, and documents would find a comfortable home

Re: my signature...

I was merely exploring standard wiki features by using a 'colorful' signature, not indulging in 'bad form'. (Such signature-bad-form is, incidentally, undocumented as far as I could find.)

--Man on the Roof (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Confidence building...

I'm still shell-shocked by your rough treatment of the JMMSr bio when you first saw it... without regard to its 'written' merit...without regard to the fact that it had been reviewed by Marine Corps historians... without regard to the fact that it had already passed through 'request for wiki feedback' status for almost a month...without regard to the fact that it was I who brought it to your attention. You could have at least contacted me, to warn me of your intentions. Failure to do so was very un-gnome-like...

I'd feel a lot better about completing the bio at Wiki if I could sense that you are, as a Marine yourself, an ally... So, I propose a confidence building exercise, if only between you and me.

If you'll undo your bio changes so that the bio appears as it did on 14 January (oldid=337830952), then I'll donate 3 more never-before-published photos via Wiki that belong to the 1937-1940 period of JMMSr's career -- which is where I'll 'hang' them once the bio is restored. The photos are of: 1) JMMSr and wife Dorice, in China, 2) Dorice and Ronald A. Wilde (later Col,), in China, and 3) JMMSr with FDR, in Warm Springs.

If you restore the bio to 14 January, the rest of the wiki community will have a chance to continue to judge it independently -- apart from your single rough reaction (which I brought on myself). If someone else wants to make similar massive edits, so be it. I'll understand the wiki 'wild west' mentality and I'll go elsewhere with my remaining material. But those 3 new historic photos will still be under Wiki's 'wing'.

Deal?

-- Man on the Roof (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sergeant,

My over-riding goal is to make JMMSr's bio the best (and best looking) bio on Wiki.

For that to happen, a number of additional steps need to be taken.

1) Correct the typos and some of the wording that your edits introduced. Things like lower case 'lieutenant general' in the info box...and the use of 'drunken' instead of the more appropriate 'tipsy'. (I can make such corrections, if you'll refrain from reverting.)

2) Exchange that godawful opening photo of JMMSr (which the whole Masters family disliked, including JMMSr) for a much better one from my photo collection. (I still don't understand why you moved the Johnston Island photo out of the top spot, where it looked great.)

3) (For me to) Provide additional Oral History transcript material from my archives, additional photos, and scanned documents. (If you don't want all 75+ scanned items that I originally planned for the bio, then give me a number I can reasonably work with. I have a rather informative inventory list of the scanned photos/documents that I planned to use in my 'format' of the bio, if that will help you.) We need to pre-agree on this material, however, because I don't want to spend time in preparation, for something that you don't intend to use in your 'format' of the bio. (But, you may format the material according to your perception of Wiki guidelines.)

Note: I'm aware that others may change what you initially use in the bio... it's not necessary for you to repeat yourself continuously on that point. But as long as you act in good faith at the outset, I'll do the same.

Are we getting any closer to middle ground? If so, please provide your comments to move us forward.

-- Man on the Roof (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Well, that sounds like we're getting on the same page.

Excellent, I'm glad to hear that.

Re: But some of the specific details need to be worked out. For example, the style guide maintains that ranks are all lowercase unless prefixing a name.

It looks to me like Rank Capitalization is standard in two situations -- when rank fronts a person's name and when rank is shown in that top info box. Because... at one time or another I've looked at the following Marine Corps bios on Wiki (which all show capitalized Rank in that info box): William H. Rupertus, Bruno Hochmuth, Victor H. Krulak, Clifton B. Cates, Lemuel C. Shepherd Jr., Robert H. Barrow, Ray Davis, Chesty Puller, and others.

Re: The word "tipsy" may not be neutral (and frankly, sounds silly IMO), though I probably should have used "inebriated" from the start (I believe that word allows for the varying severity, which seems to be your intent).

How about 'slightly inebriated'... which more accurately describes Bruno Hochmuth's condition, according to JMMSr's account.

Re: Those are all minor details, but worth haggling over. It would be better to work those kinds of things out at the article's talk page, so that the record is associated with the article.

OK. Why don't you place your next reply on the article's talk page. And I'll pick it up from there.

Re: I'd have to see what other photos you had in mind, but I would have to insist on something more formal and recent than the Johnston Island photo.

That stock photo you chose is awful, and must go. I'll provide you better ones, that are, also, more 'current' than the Johnston Island photo. I'll place a couple of photos on my website (on a special page), where you may make a choice...trusting that you will not yet place it/them in Wiki Commons, until I do that. I'll let you know the webpage address when it's ready.

Re: I don't really see what's wrong with the current image; it is quite consistent with most of the other articles regarding Marine generals.

In the opinion of everyone who knew him personally, it's by far the worst official photo ever taken of JMMSr. It has got to go, or we are right back into an impasse. Please choose another one from the aforementioned webpage (when its ready).

Re: I think the transcript would be the top priority, verification is one of our most important policies.

Can't you get that from the Directorate of Marine Corps History and Museums (Oral History Collection) itself? It would be a major scanning.(and brightness/contrast adjustment) task for me (via Paintshop Pro) -- more than 300 hundred pages. And, my scanner has seen better days...such a major effort might well be the end of it.

Re: I think the number of images would depend on a great number of things... I'm thinking that in general, each section could use one or two. In its current state, for example, I would be quite comfortable with adding one each to the Chine, Interim, and Post-war sections.

I'll send you an inventory list of the scanned photos/documents I intended to use - to give you an idea of some of the things I have. You may want to revise your comfort level upward. Can I send it to your email address - or other more preferable repository?

Re: I also have to not that I dislike the images that don't depict the subject of the biographical article... ripped out by others as irrelevant to the subject).

Can't we play that by ear, case by case? Because, the images I have are never-before seen online. For example. the photo of later-Col. Ronald B. Wilde with Dorice Masters in China. If such photos don't get a showing on Wiki (in context with the JMMSr bio) then they'll never be seen. I'm not in favor of wholesale uploading of everything I have for placement into a nebulous 'gallery'. I'm reminded of the end of 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' (Indiana Jones), when the Ark is sent to a government warehouse -- filled with rows and rows and rows of historical items... where the Ark will be lost forever. I'd rather retain the unused images, and (as long as I'm around) I'll try to find a richer contextual-home for them elsewhere.

Re: I'd rather have a stripped-down article than none at all. I'm sure you can appreciate that.

Yes, indeed

Re: Oh, and would you do me a favor? I would be appreciative if you didn't address my by my rank.

Sorry. Many, many, years ago JMMSr taught me that a rank address was more respectful. Old training habits die hard.

-- Man on the Roof (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, with the inventory and photo webpage. House guests arrived Saturday for a two week stay. (BTW, we live in a remote resort/fishing village on the Aegean Coast of Turkey, which is why I think you're better situated than I to obtain a copy of the Oral History transcript.) If you're curious, you can see more about my Turkish wife and I at:

http://www.practicalturkish.com/friends-of-lpt.html

I'll send you the inventory a little later today... and begin loading the photo page this evening.

-- Man on the Roof (talk) 10:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this message should go here or on the Article talk page... After reading it, if you feel all (or part) of it should appear on the Article page, let me know and I'll take care of it.

For the last couple of days, I've been on the road with house guests - up and down the coast (from Seferihisar [ancient Teos] in the North to Selcuk and Ephesus in the south), showing off ancient artifacts/ruins. As many times as I've seen them, they never fail to dazzle.

And yes, considering our location, it's very interesting about the topic of your thesis. Is the thesis for your Master's or your Doctorate? My jack of all trades son, James IV (who publishes, etc. under the name of 'Jamie Masters' in the UK) earned his doctorate from Cambridge (Magdalene College) in 'Ancient Literature of Greece and Rome'. Maybe you know of his academic or musical works?

Finally, to the main point of the message... The online page of thumbnail photos I mentioned, is now ready to view. I like either of the Lt. General photos (at page top) as a replacement for the current 'pale on pale' photo (which makes JMMSr look ill). Please tell me your choice between the two, and I will then donate the full-sized photo to Wiki. (Will you then insert the better photo into the bio, or should I?)

http://www.learningpracticalturkish.com/james-m-masters-sr.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Champmasters (talk • contribs) 11:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Over the next several days, I'll use that same online photo page to display other photos/documents from my collection. You can match those photos/documents against the inventory lists I sent earlier. We can then decide together which additional items I should donate.

From there, I can send you more rich-contextual passages where the agreed photos/documents might be hung. And you can format it the way you like.

-- Man on the Roof (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added in references to (some) the fact tags that you removed in James M. Masters, Sr. I disagree that all of the information was already in the article or cited, specifically the dates of promotion. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the refs on this page! -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hubert Joseph Kupper

I just came across this article while banging around some info on the Battle of Chosin Reservoir. I am not really in a position to do any research on this guy at the moment but the article needs a whole lot of work. If everything on the page is legit then he deserves it. Was hoping you might be able to dig a little bit. Thanks.--Looper5920 (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at this link and did not see his name as a recipient of the Navy Cross. The only ref for the article is here and the way it is written I think it is bullshit. I cannot imagine anything written by Congress to be worded in such a tone not to mention the facts are dubious at best and the letter head is suspect. Chesty Puller was not in China in the 1920s (and Marine mounted cavalry?), the only Marines that were there for the invasion of North Africa were observers, not to mention why would a Marine be on a light cruiser and I find it very dubious that anyone took part in 13 battles in the Pacific. Also, Marines did not take part in the invasion of Luzon on the ground. Have a look, tell me what you think. I am kind of hoping they did not name this chapter after this dude.--Looper5920 (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Then again it may just be written very shittily. Not sure I want to be involved in this one.--Looper5920 (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated the subject article for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hubert Joseph Kupper. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 05:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Category: American Colonial Marines

Hey there my friend! it is about the 'Category:USMC in the 18th-19th centuries' that was placed on the article "American Colonial Marines". In my opinion, I don't think that this category would apply since this article reflects the other marine units are not tied to the history of the United States Marine Corps. Many of the state navies' marines were a totally different entity, set aside from the Continental Navy and Marines. It was because 1st Continental Congress they didn't want to exhaust, or rely, on the individual states, due to 'supposed' conflicts within each other over funding for naval raiding operations and whatnot. Hence forth, they chartered their own Continental naval services thereafter. Hope I didn't confuse you, it is quite hard to displace all the individual maritime militias that participated in the 'War for Freedom'.—RekonDog (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: So be it...just letting you know beforehand to avoid a backlash; I tend to make enemies everywhere I go, unintentionally of course.—RekonDog (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Flight Time

You should thank Flight Time your able to edit freely. Mlpearc (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not only offended but also very upset with the fact that one of your editors, (Robert P Lemiszki Jr) has the gall to even mention that this article has no merit and needs to be deleted. I don't know what Marine Corps you were in but you must have NO idea about what RECON is and it's history within the Corps. Just for the record: 3rd Recon Bn was the MOST DECORATED BN SIZE OUTFIT TO SERVE IN VIETNAM. The simple fact that Team Flight Time was the last team to be completely wiped out in the war, serves not only as a reminder of the sacrifices made by our military in Vietnam but it is also a huge part of the history of our war.

For you or anyone else to think otherwise is totally unacceptable.

Also, I am webmaster for 3rd Recon/Vietnam and I have numerous articles concerning this tradgedy. Just to have this piece included in the Wikipedia is an honor and a responsibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shortrounf68 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 13 February 2010

sorry i just do not know how to use wikipedia, but i wanted to clarify something that you keep saying which is "There is only one source regarding the incident in question, and it's about as close to hardly third-party; the remainder are merely short bios and I am unable to find any other references." if you had even bothered to look you would have found the entire declassified 202 page report of that night. it really sickens me that you care so little to even take the time to research before you embarrass yourself. maybe in the future you should think about that. http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/1201/1201024032.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.127.54.195 (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello ...i am realizing that all my comment made should have been placed in some other talk page ...I am sorry to hear people are spamming you..rest assured it is not me (Canadian IP) or anyone i know...I have talk to a few people about it and all declined to get involved. Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Edits to your comments

Just wanted to give you the heads up up about [1] and [2] -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

refactored from section header:Won't Happen Again

My point was made and received Good DayMlpearc (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This subject is closed good day Mlpearc (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sir, I am a busy man, I'm done with subject. There will be no further responces from me GOOD DAY Mlpearc (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

For you

For grace under fire during the flight time afd

It is sad that we editors have to ensure that articles here meet all required and currently acceptable policies and guidelines, and that we are singled out for blame as a result of our actions when policy and guideline material clash with personal opinions. IMO, Sergeant Robert P Lemiszki Jr, you deserve this for all the crap you have had to put up with since filing the afd nom for flight time.

On a related note, I see talk of potentially recreating the article. If the page does end up deleted I'll inform the other milhist coordinators and keep an eye on the page. Recreation of deleted material is grounds for speedy deletion so unless the others can radically expand upon and improve that article it will be eligible for the axe immediately after it reappears. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the term "Finding it's right Home" would be more accurate Mlpearc (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Amigo

Thank you Buddy, I'm just trying to tie up some loose ends and then keep an eye on things. Right now, I'm trying to get someone to create a PD tag for the images of the Institute of Puerto Rican Culture, since I have the permission of the Puerto Rican Government (I forwarded said permission to OTRS) and I have one more project.

I want to write an article about the historical "Teatro Puerto Rico" which was located in the South Bronx. The theater was to the Hispanic community in the 1950s what the "Apollo Theater" was to the Black community. There isn't a good article out there about the theater. My father was the MC in it's "golden era" and he prepared a "CD" with an interview, plus he'll be sending me some pictures. The family of Miguel Poventud, whose daughter is a documentary producer wrote to me and told me that she is interested in producing a documentary about the "Teatro Puerto Rico" with my work. So, I have things cut out for me. By the way, I might be in the NY area sometime this fall. Semper FI. Tony the Marine (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Stalkers

According to this, 39 of you slugs have my page watchlisted... who the hell are all of you stalkers? bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Guilty as charged :) -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Guilty Mlpearc (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

38. I scared one of y'all off. bahamut0013^words_deeds 22:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

41. Really, who are you guys? bahamut0013^words_deeds 00:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing the rest of them are people like me who have their preferences set to "Add pages I edit to my watchlist." I'm going to stop stalking you now.CruiserBob (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no, don't stop on my account. I just wanted to know who it was. But that certainly explains it. bahamut0013^words_deeds 00:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:Where we stand

I actually added a section to the main OMT page to address this since I thought it an important point, The ed17 hid the section so as not to scare off potential editors for the project. The hidden section reads:

Due to the extreme size of this operation we will run this in multiple phases. Each phase is listed below, along with the roughly defined scope the phase covers. We are currently working on phase one.

Phase 1

The Ships Themselves: All battleship and battlecruisers are included in this phase, along with their respective class articles. This includes, whenever possible, battleship and battlecruiser classes that did not make it past the planning phase but have sufficient information to warrant an article. This also extends to individual hulls that were laid down but not completed, if the hulls in question have enough information to warrant individual articles. Those ship articles with insufficient information for a stand alone article should be merged into their respective class articles.

Phase 2

Weaponry: All guns installed or operated aboard the battleships or battlecruisers in question will be covered under this phase. This phase also includes any missiles, CIWS systems, electronic warfare, and anti-submarine warfare systems. This phase should also include any associated fire control systems used by the battleship or battlecruiser in question if employed to assist with firing the ordinance. Whenever possible, weaponry information should be covered in existing articles, or created for this phase.

Phase 3

Major Historical Highlights: This phase will address major events that involved battleships or battlecruisers. This phase will center on events like the sailing of the Great White Fleet and the Battle of Jutland, where battleships and/or battlecruisers were highlighted in an important historical context.

Phase 4

Miscellaneous: Anything not immediately covered by the above three sections. This phase number is subject to shift depending on developments form the other three phases that may warrant an independent phase before this one.

Thought you might like to know. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Iowas

Can you point to a picture so I can what you mean? TomStar81 (Talk) 22:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

United States Under Secretary of the Army

Thanks for adding the list of Under Secretaries of the Army. I just got done a series of bio pages on the Under Secretaries of the Navy and the various Assistant Secretaries of the Navy, and I created the Under Secretary of the Army page when I got to Bernard D. Rostker and realized there was no Wikipedia page for the Under Secretary of the Army. I was thinking of also creating Wikipedia pages for each of the Assistant Secretaries of the Army - would you also know where to find lists of the various Assistant Secretaries? Adam sk (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey

There's some updates for you in regards to your graphic request. Feel free to comment there or on my talk page or this page if you wish. -Cam^T|C 05:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Smedley Butler

I hope your enjoying the meetup. I wanted to let you know that I have submitted a couple of article for GA, FA or FLC status and thought you might be interesteed. First the Smedley Butler article was submitted for FA. Next John Basilone is pending a GA review and lastly there are 3 lists of Medal of Honor recipients currently pending at FLC. These are the List of Medal of Honor recipients, List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Boxer Rebellion and the List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Vietnam War. These are all pending review and all pertain directly or indirectly to the Corps so I thought I would mention them to you. Please feel free to take a look and add comments if you have the time. --Kumioko (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ive thought about doing one but right now there aren't any good groupings to do. I think the first one will be for lists but were not quite there yet. --Kumioko (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh!

I forgot about that. Good edit! Hahaha. Lara 00:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Urban sniper

Article restored in your userspace per your request. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Windless Steel Crafts Sword Company

I purchased a sword a few years ago from the Windless Steel Crafts Sword Company of India, the makers of the Drill Sabers used by the US Marine Corps. I am such a huge fan of swords and love this company's workmanship so much, I checked them out on wiki. No article for them existed, so I tought that I would try to take a "stab" (pun intended) at writing one. I found your name on the Wiki-porject Militry History talk page and thought I could get your opinion on how I could write this without sounding too promotional as a satified customer and owner of one of their fine swords. Armorbearer777 (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Fobbitt

Thanks for your message. I was actually trying to start the process of transwiki-ing it to Wiktionary. Do you know how that is done - the instructions I've been able to find are not very clear. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Your image request...

... at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop#1967 Marine General Officers Symposium photo is done, I think as good as it's going to get. Please try to figure out the source of the original, otherwise it's probably going to be deleted. Wine Guy~Talk 21:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ping!

Might interest you Ironholds (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Please check out: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Series of tubes (3rd nomination). Thanks. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

USMC Slang

We were definitely in the Corps at different times. I was in during Desert Storm and we commonly called the giant hot dogs and sausages dog dicks. SitRep was also a common term. ALICE was used to describe your pack, not your belts. Maybe things have changed, but I don't think it was right to undo a valid edit. I'm just as much a Marine as you and I've heard many terms that aren't even on the list, and some of the terms that are on the list are incorrect. But, I would have enough respect for those editors to discuss the situation first before changing them. -Shawn Crapo 04:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sec 1971 (talk • contribs)

Portal:Battleships

You should pull this selected article, since it was just delisted as a FA: Portal:Battleships/Selected article/1 -MBK₀₀₄ 02:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to History of the United States Marine Corps.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any .

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 13:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.

RE: History of USMC

Thanks for pointing those errors out to me. Hey, I need your utmost opinion/wisdom/etc.,...I've been wanting to get the breadth of my suggestions, concerning the article History of the United States Marine Corps. Sorry if this becomes an unexpected burden on your behalf.

I have concluded that approx. 80% of these military-related articles here on Wikipedia (besides any related to military science and equipment), there are always three definitive types of history, all in a composite, unorganized format, as mentioned:

1) institutions, 2)organizations, 3) and operations.

If one was to give any details about the history of a military branch, or its units contained within their operational structures, it would require a huge amount of info and additional details to express the interesting highlights about the Marine Corps and its involvement in helping shape our Country. Plus, it is hard to elaborate chronologically about any entity of the military structure, since many separate military units are going about their own missions, operations, and such, simultaneously--it forces the reader having to browse up and down the article just so to follow-up where one has left off.

I suggest that perhaps, the article be reassembled as such three 'definitives' of history, and of course, without destroying the fabric of the already-contained information. The most perfect example to explain is the article, Advanced Base Force. Although, due to it being a short-lived structure, it was simple to illustrate those three types of history accordingly, and it allowed simple wikilink accessibility. Logically, it also works on grandeur scale. Reasonably, that it is much easier for readers to fundamentally reference a particular historical source based on the USMC, by having three separate articles pertaining to the history of "operations", it's "organizations", and a well-defined "institutional" history--which most of the key events definitively illustrates the formation of the Marine Corps.

I hope that all this didn't come out to be too confusing. Tell me what you think, I'll accept criticism and your most expressed opinions on the matter.—RekonDog (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank your for your repose; then I think I will stick with the "institution" of the Marine Corps for my contributions. I think that inputting their manner of operations on that article will make it too long as it is. I have a stacks of papers, folders, pictures, old orders, manuals; I printed since my last visit at the NARA. Perhaps should a new separate article be created in only reflecting on their operations throughout history, albeit, a short version of it? Or just continue it on my "wikibooks" page, then post it publicly--have the Wikipedia article connectible to it? I would like your suggestion for motion. Well, thank you, Devil Dog....as you were, :D—RekonDog (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Ok, well, I do have a lot of addt'l info I wish to distribute; I may hold off on posting it public for now, my project page is from where I pieced the info on to the Wikipedia article recently. So, maybe you can give me some suggestions as where these may come into play later on?—RekonDog (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

friendly chat

Just wondering how you been and what have you been up too. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:My condolences

Respectively:

A-class at the moment is out of the question; we would have to pull a lot of strings to pass the articles through that, and since most of the people overseeing OMT and the BB portal are from or have ties to the coordinator group the articles passage through that system and a subsequent awarding of A-class would look awfully suspicious. GA-class is at the moment a more realistic goal, if we can cut the remaining non-cited material out of the article then the article should be able to pass for GA for the time being, which will help buy us some time to get our ducks in a row so to speak.

As for the library: yes, we could use a librarian's help. We need information on the armor and armament of the ships, as well as the aircraft employed. I am going to make an effort this year to convert all the Iowa articles off the online sources they rely on and put them on paper sources since citing to books help ensure continuity for the information. With regards to the class article, as it serves as the common ground for the weaponry, aircraft, and armor for the ships, and the reactivation debate, that is what we need most at the moment. We also need to coordinate this rebuilding effort with Brad101, as we was the major player in the FARC and would be in the best position to explaiin pricesly what in the article needs help.

I feel bad I could not do more for the article, what limited sources I had simply were not up to the task. I should have listen to that little voice in my head that told me not to go to FAR with the article, alas I realize this too late to be of use. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually do not have any particular book in mind, I usually swing like Tarzan from one book to another, taking that which I feel is important to heart and disregarding the rest. Ed and MBK have the books we have come to rely on, if you ask them they may be able to suggest a specific book. I have saved on my computer "The American Battleship, Samuel Loring Morison with Norman Polmar", but I have no idea if the book would be useful because I do not own it nor have I found it. If nothing else, this could serve as a place to start. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

TomStar81 (Talk) 03:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This comment may be OBE but for what its worth that book is available at the Naval Library on the Washington Navy Yard and if your local library participates in the book loan program, the WNY library will "loan" the book to them, who will in turn check it out to you. --Kumioko (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:Observations on Wikipedia behavior

Wow, what a great essay. Didn't even know about it. Thank you for letting me know. The funny thing is that as I read it I realized that there were things that applied to me. I'm just taking a back seat and regrouping for now. I have written as least two or three articles since Dec., but I checking out some of my first articles which I would like to bring up to standard. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

User:X!/Hubert Joseph Kupper

The article was userfied a few weeks ago. Hope this helps! (X! · talk)  · @998  ·  22:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Oh, and if you have to reply, please do it here... I personally despise the "you talk on my page, I talk on yours" mentality and the {{talkback}} template. I have your page watchlisted. :)

OK, if the record pan anything out, I will work on it there. If not, I'll let you know and you can delete it (unless you keep all of the articles you delete). bahamut0013^words_deeds 00:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

File:USMC convoy.jpg

try File:USMC convoy.jpg, sorry usuaully I put the name of the file in the delete reason. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Seabag

We need your help. Please place your image Seabag.jpg to wikimewdia commons. To let use it by wikis in other languages.

Thank you. Inc ru (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Lawrence H. Livingston

bahamut0013, the winged badge on MajGen Livingston's right breast is the Vietnamese Master Parachute Badge. It's recognisable by the bronze device similar to the palm device on the Cross of Gallantry [the senior badge has a star and the basic badge has no device]. What is strange is that it's worn on his uniform at all as any breast insignia other than pilot/navigator wings are prohibited on a Marine uniform under MCO P1020.34 Paragraph 4002 but perhaps generals are allowed some leeway? Whopper75 (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

RE:Article

Thanks, devil dog. I'll read up on that article you forwarded to me; I'll find it rewarding and resourceful. By the way, that {USMCmajorcommands} template is quite impressive. Keep up the good work, over and out.RekonDog (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Fan club

Blieve me, I understand what it is like to have idiots make unwanted comments. I've had my share of those "fans". I'm glad that he/she was blocked. You did what I've done in the past, revert said comments. If you have any more problems of the kind, let me know and I'll handle it. Semper Fi. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Official Bahamut0013 Fan Club signups - only constructive users, please

1. I want to join a club. I am already in Wikicup but would like to be in another club. I propose that Bahamut0013 be Emeritus President, Tony the Marine be Chancellor, and that I be Secretary/Treasurer/Chief Security Officer. Still open are Vice Chancellor and Ombudsman. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

We can always start an alternative fan club. Those "fans" versus us fans. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Demographics and the United States Marine Corps

Hi Bahamut,

You posted the following message to my talk page:

Hello, I saw your name on Wikipedia:WikiProject Demographics and thought you may be able to help. I've been taking a class on sociology latley, and that sparked my interest in exploring the demographics of the United States Marine Corps. However, I'm not really sure where to go as a starting point... as in, what is demographically relevant? Gender, race/ethnicity, rank, occupational specialty? What should I avoid? What would be redundant to Demographics of the United States? My main reference will be the Marine Corps Almanac (the final chaper in all but the oldest three volumes)... I don't merely want to parrot statistics, but have to walk a fine line against OR and synth. Any insight you might have would be suprememly helpful. bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm flattered that you would ask me, so I'll try to advise you to the best of my ability...

Demographics of the United States Marine Corps and Demography of the United States Marine Corps are interesting topics. Nothing on Wikipedia yet, though. Good choices for new articles.

I enjoy demography, which is the statistical analysis and comparison of populations. But the vocabulary is tricky because of the idiomatic word "demographics". While anything pertaining to demography is "demographically related" or "demographic" in nature, "demographics" is a distinct noun that means "demographic data" and/or the population characteristics that such data show. So, if you submit any demographic (demography-related) papers at school, be very careful not to confuse the term "demographics" with "demography", as that might affect your grade. Analogically, demography is to geography (see Demography of Afghanistan and Geography of Afghanistan) as demographics is to geographic data. Demography is a field or type of content, while demographics is one of the things demography produces, analyzes, and reports.

What is demographically relevant? How appropriate the content you include is depends on whether the article is about the demography of the Marine Corps, or just the statistics themselves (the demographics).

If you include more than demographic statistics in the article, or you include non-USMC stats in the article, it would be better to name the article Demography of the United States Marine Corps. Demography goes beyond simply presenting the statistics on the focal subject (marines). Ask yourself: "Is the article about the USMC statistics themselves, or is it about the Marines as described through statistics? A "demography of" article may contain anything demographically related such as observations, hypotheses, comparisons, demographic analysis, and analytic conclusions. And it may also provide space for the coverage of the topic as a branch of demography, which may have its own background, proponents, and history.

Concerning the demography of the USMC, it doesn't matter what is redundant to the US population, if the redundancy also describes the membership of the Marine Corps or is used for comparison. Exploring how marines compare with the US population is one of the most useful applications of the USMC demographic data. That is, is the USMC a general cross-section of America? (It's not). And if not, how so? Comparing data can answer questions about the differences between populations, such as "Do marines make more than the average American?" To answer that, you need to know what both earn.

Start with the topic's focus (marines). Statistical data about marines can help answer key questions such as "What type of person is most likely to become a marine?" (Sociologically speaking, "Who are the Marines?") Questions about marines, like that one, seem like very good search queries to begin with.

And rather than focusing on a primary source (like the statistics published by the Marine Corps itself), perhaps it would be better to look around at the analyses others have done in the (periodical) literature on the subject (secondary sources). What conclusions did they publish? That's one route to avoid adding "original research" and synthesis of published material that advances a position to a demography article.

Another way is to present two sets of data and let the reader arrive at his or her own conclusions. Like two columns of data, one with Marine demographics, and the other with demographics of the US population.

I hope this helps.

The Transhumanist 20:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Request

Whenever you have the time, I need for you to do me a favor. Go to the "Military decorations" section in the Capt. Ivan Castro article and place his decorations in the order of importance. Semper Fi. Tony the Marine (talk) 08:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you brother, I knew that I could count on you. "Precedence?", Oops! (smile). I was trying to figure out the proper term, I knew that I had it wrong. Thank you once again. Semper Fi. Tony the Marine (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pay no attention to L/Cpl "Yo". I have been called worse, one time, a Mother-F'er came to my page and called me a "Baby Killer". You get all kinds. Tony the Marine (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Motto of the Day

Hi there, Bahamut0013! Thought you might be interested in Motto of the Day, a collaborative (and totally voluntary) effort by a group of Wikipedians to create original, inspirational mottos. Have a good motto idea? Share it here, comment on some of the mottos there or just pass this message onto your friends.

MOTD Needs Your Help!

Delivered By –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

re: the Iwo Jima statue

No offense imagined, and even if there were some reason to, I'd cut you a lot of slack for bein' a Marine. And for the troubles you seem to be going thru. I figure I owe my freedom to a lot of guys, never having been in the military myself. But, whatever it was, thanks for bein' nice about it. BTW I have somebody in DC that might go and look for us Friendly Person (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Good Humor

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		On behalf of everyone at Operation Majestic Titan, I hereby award you The Barnstar of Good Humor for unleashing the eight ball of giggles, laughter, and operational wisdom on us. Thanks for the laughter. For all participating members of Majestic Titan as of 16 May 2010, TomStar81 (Talk) 05:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yellowfootprints.com

I entered Yellowfootprints.com into the external links of both MCRD pages. Both entries were removed. If I screwed up somehow, please let me know. If there is a better place for the entry, please let me know. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.143.208.253 (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a better place for them; it's an unofficial community website that doesn't add to the encyclopedic value of the article. See WP:External links and WP:NOT. bahamut0013^words_deeds 22:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI

You said "Review each article[GA], and then I could support this" in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles#No, actually we went through all GA articles and finished reviewing them in March 2010 (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-15/Dispatches). On the other hand, FA never made similar moves nor have any plans on doing so in the near future. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For creating the navbox for Operation Majestic Titan. It looks like it will prove to be very useful. Try adding cats for each navy, etc.. Buggie111 (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

MythBusters

sweet pic, dude! --Kaini (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Any idea what sort of licensing is applied to pics on twitter (well, specifically, twitpic)? - or is it up to the publisher? The reason I ask is that both Adam and Grant are very active on twitter, with all sorts of sweet shots of M5 et cetera. I might just ask them, I guess! --Kaini (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just sent Adam a tweet. But dude has a quarter of a million followers! We shall see... --Kaini (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

hey, Adam responded! so i have transplanted discussion to Talk:Jamie Hyneman for now. --Kaini (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:US Officer ranks collapsed

The template you created "Template:US Officer ranks collapsed" will soon be nominated for deletion. It is no longer necessary. Please see the discussion at the "Template:US officer ranks" talk page for details. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Wrong person... Firefox 3.6's moronic way of opening new tabs next to the current tab got me confused about which page I was looking at. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sig on awards page

Thanks for removing it. I have this wierd habit of signing after every edit I do, no matter what namspace. See! I'm doing it now! Buggie111 (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Army/Air Force brat, experiences which leave me at a loss sometimes for Marine Corp lingo. I'll file your comment away for future reference, and thanks for the correction, Sergeant.

R/S,

TomStar81 (Talk) 00:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You got it, baha. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bahamut0013. You have new messages at TomStar81's talk page.
Message added 20:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-MBK₀₀₄ 20:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Titan's Cross

		The Titan's Cross in Bronze
		For being the driving force behind the creation of the battleship portal, for being instrumental in helping us rebuild the main page to its current look, and for the hard work and diligence you have shown to this operation I have the honor of presenting you the Titan's Cross in Bronze on behalf of all members of Operation Majestic Titan. Outstanding work, Bahamut0013! TomStar81 (Talk) 07:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Letter

Hi buddy, your request is justifiable and within reason. I have removed the image from the articles involved and requested it's deletion from "Commons". Semper Fi Tony the Marine (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you look again at an AfD?

[3]. The sources have significantly improved. Hobit (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

372nd Military Police Company

I was wondering about the Abu Gharaib involvement as well. This appears to be practically the only notable thing the company has done. Should I add some information to the Abu Gharaib article and redirect the article? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Length of Marine Corps crucible

How many references are needed to show it lasts for 54 hours not 72?

The best source for the correct information of them all, the website for Paris Island.

http://www.mcrdpi.usmc.mil/training/crucible/index.asp

It's 54 hours. I do stand corrected, that the march is 48 not 40 miles.

I'll redo the wikipedia entry and put the above link in as reference. William 15:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Please Note

The Engineer Equipment add and taken away are up to date and current to Marine Corps Standards. Any questions please ref Marine Corps MCBULL3000 or T/E Engineer Equipment Per MC manuals and TM's.

Or just call your local Combat Eng Bn or ESB. Semper Fi

--Naplam1345 17:13 29 June 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 22:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC).

engineers-pin insignia

in relation to the engineers corps insignia: [4] this is the reason, why i asked my friend about the engineers-thing. i've seen many more marines wearing the pin. and NOT a patch with the castle. i've seen also some marines wearing a velcro with their names, the EGA, rank, blood type embroided on and the castle pinned on it. so i've asked him about and he said, that's common use of the castle pin nowadays.

greetings, patrick explanations and help welcome. Firefly2004 (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)

The June 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Signature

bahamut0013^words_deeds

Your signature uses a font color of #000 on a background of #918151, giving a contrast of 5.5:1. This fails the color accessibility standards linked from Wikipedia:Signatures#Appearance and color.[5] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

User:IBen/TB —mono(how's my driving?) 00:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC) (x2) —mono 23:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Autoupdate of the OMT progress table

Hey bahamut,

It seems nobody raised any objections at the little poll, so feel free to go ahead with the autoupdating tables. If there is something you need help with (like tagging all 545 articles), just gimme a shout. Yoenit (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Custom signature

Hello Bahamut! Just wanted to let you know that your signature is a bit hard to read on a dark monitor. In addition, it isn't very easy to make sense of even if you can read it. You may want to read over Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature and make sure that your signature complies with the guidelines, i.e. isn't confusing or distracting. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

USMC Changes

Those changes took me a long time to make. For you to just delete them really offended me. You mentioned that the Honor Courage and Commitment card would be better placed on a different page. Well then how's about putting what I wrote there. I actually took the time to photograph my card, and type down every thing that was on it. And you just deleted all of that.

Also, you didn't just undo that 1 change. You undid 4 of my changes. They tell all Marines that "Every Marine is a Rifleman." I added the Rifleman's Creed to the "see also" section. What possibly was your reasoning for removing that?

Also, it is said "Semper Fi" or "Semper Fidelis." That crap you put, "Semper Fi, Mac" was the title of a book about the Marines, the added "Mac" is never used. I was in the Marines for many years, and I never once heard anyone through a "Mac" on the end. The change I made also included a helpful link to the Semper Fidelis page, and you removed it.

I had:

• Semper Fi (short for Semper Fideles) was a common and preferred form of greeting in times past. It is Latin, for "Always Faithful."

I am really, just very angry. What gives you the right to just delete my changes, who made you king and gaurdian of the page of an originazation I donated years of my life to? And why did you delete my helpful changes? What possibly could be wrong with me adding a link on "Semper Fi" to the "Semper Fidelis page that explains what it means? -- File077 August 5th, 2010 at 1044 EST —Preceding unsigned comment added by File077 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Creed of the United States Coast Guardsman

Looks like from your user pages that you have your hands full, Marine! However I'm posting here for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, Thank you for your service to our country. It may not seem important to a lot of people, but it is damned important to me. Although I retired as a Chief Petty Officer in the Coast Guard, my first service was as a young Army Sergeant in Vietnam...so I have walked a mile or two in combat boots and know the sacrifices made by those who choose to serve. Might fine, Marine! Second, thank you for your comments on User talk:Bearcat relating to his summary deletion of the Creed of the United States Coast Guardsman. I am preparing to put it back out there in the next month with expanded content and references and we'll see if it flies. What ever I post will be encyclopedic and referenced so there won't be a bitch on that account. From a Coast Guardsman to a Marine: Salute! Semper Fidelis and Semper Paratus! Cuprum17 (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

2nd opinion

I noticed your name as part of the edit history of War artist.

If you please, may I ask you to review my re-write of Military art; and please add this article along with War artist to your watchlist.

I also invite your comments at Talk:Military art#Problematic edits and at Talk:War artist#Taxonomy argument. --Tenmei (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

28th Combat Support Hospital

Hi, Bahamut0013. Would you mind taking a look at the changes I've made to the 28th Combat Support Hospital (United States) article (which is currently up for AfD)? I had some spare time, so I thought I would try a rewrite. Would you mind adding your opinion (whether it is still delete or if it has changed to keep) on the AfD also? The link is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/28th Combat Support Hospital (United States). Thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

All Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipients now have articles

I wanted to let you know that today, with the creation of the Christopher Nugent (Medal of Honor) article, all Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipients now have an article on Wikipedia. If you do find one thats missing though please let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Speech

This humble servant would like to share this speech made before the Commission of the Latino American Museum, with his friends: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=423585291337 Tony the Marine (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Image for possible Ironclad portal

I'm considering building a portal for ironclads and would like to take advantage of your experience. Any advice? And how did you make that spiffy image for the portal tag?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced; Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy	Editorial Opportunities for new military history articles
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

M27

Can u tell me from where u have the infos of with and height of the M27? Thx--Sanandros (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I translate it from de:M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle, but there no information about the width and height. And I don't know anymore either.--ArikamaI (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12