User talk:bahamut0013/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

OrBat diagrams

I make with Photoshop - I created all the icons and then shuffle them around until I have the finished graphic. Most of the symbols I created can be found at APP-6A#Unit icons- all the others I have on my PC. If you want/need them, just let me know. --noclador (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There are 148 symbols in all. email has been sent. --noclador (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-sent it. If this doesn't work too, then go to my wikipedia page user:noclador and email me. --noclador (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the information about the MEF Headquarters Group units. They were not in the wikipedia articles and so they are missing in the current graphics. I'm away from my PC today/tomorrow, so I can't update the graphics today, but I will do it Thursday. If you have the time to check if the other infos about the Marine units on wikipedia are correct and let me know any errors you might find, I will fix them as well :-) I also have a question: Civil Affairs Groups are company strength but commanded by a Colonel... which unit-symbol should be used in the graphics? I = company? II = battalion? III = regiment? thanks, --noclador (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

another question: "5th Force Reconnaissance was folded into 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion as Bravo Company, which also deploys as the Deep Reconnaissance Company in the 31st MEU(SOC) at Okinawa." (from United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance#Organization) also the III MEF Headquarters Group homepage does not mention the 5th as a subordinate unit... (http://www.iiimef.usmc.mil/mhgwebpage/iiimhg.html) question: could please clarify the issue? thanks, --noclador (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Looper5920 just deleted the graphic without a bit of attempt to let me know what is wrong and needs to be changed - such behaviour annoys me massively! I will try to update the graphics today with the information from your Templates and hope to be able to post them already tonight. As for the units names I will try to stick as closely to the units names, but also try to make it understandable for people that are not experts as we are. --noclador (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I updated 1, 3, Reserve graphics - the 2 MEF and Wing tomorrow; cheers, --noclador (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about 4th LAAD and VMU-4 - I updated the graphic of the Image:4th US Marine Aircraft Wing.png and as I was already at it, did also update the graphics of the 2 MEF and 2 Wing. Yes! Definitely keep me in the loop about any changes you come across in the structure of the USMC and I will always update the graphics as soon as possible :-) --noclador (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope - no mistake; I had all the squadrons as battalion sized units until some months ago, when there was a discussion about it and as we were not sure what actually is the correct symbol for a USMC squadron we settled on company size as most squadrons seem to have around 100-120 persons (which is company size), but on the other hand the squadrons are commanded by Lieutenant Colonel, which makes them more like a battalion... As for me: obviously you and Looper are much deeper involved with the Marines as anyone else around wikipedia and if you think that they should be represented by the battalion symbol - I will update the graphics tomorrow. greetings, --noclador (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You did not misunderstood my point: I had them as battalions and want to have them as battalions, but after that discussion (I would need to search for it) I changed them to company - if I can say that you as active marine insisted on them being shown as battalions I will change them (happily) all tonight; no problem there :-) --noclador (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Firearms

Welcome to the WikiProject Firearms. I hope you enjoy being a member.--LWF (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks / Comment on break

Thanks so much for the note; and, most especially, for taking up the updating of the USMC Portal. Being on break, I was planning to try to keep up with the monthly updates, but I was surprised and pleased that you had done the last couple.

My short break has been extended due to RL - family and work. Everytime I think that I will have less demands on my time, something comes up. Looks like I'll be under time pressure for at least another couple of months.

Keep up the good work. Thanks for staying in touch.

— ERcheck (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 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) 00:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Panzer I A-Class Review

Hey,

Since you're a member of the Military land vehicles task force I just wanted to let you know that the Panzer I article is currently going through an A-class review. Your comments and support would be much appreciated, and would help the task force continue on its way to increasing the quality under its scope. Thank you! JonCatalán (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

Introducing WikiProject United States Government...
	Hello Bahamut0013, Are you interested in Politics, Law or the United States? Do you enjoy expanding, creating or maintaining articles relating to those subjects? Or do you enjoy the small stuff? Or maybe you like learning about the United States Congress or the Commander in Chief. Well, wait no longer, because we have a project for you! WikiProject United States Government is where all the cool Wikipedians who watch C-SPAN hang out! Join the project today and help us get it off the ground and flying. Thanks in advance, « Diligent Terrier Bot (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC) This message has been delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot on behalf of WikiProject United States Government. You have received it because you are a member of a related WikiProject or you have said you are interested in your userspace. Message written by Leonard^Bloom and Diligent Terrier.	Help us get the project off the ground and flying.

Re: Something I found

Well, using something like {{editprotected}} requires that one actually have an edit they want to make. ;-)

I think the idea being pursued here is that having needlessly protected pages is something to avoid. It's not a bad idea, per se; and it's so early in the implementation that I'm not really sure how much bureaucracy is going to grow out of it. I'm willing to leave it be for the time being and see if it develops into anything useful; it doesn't seem to be causing any problems yet, at the least.

Cheers! Kirill ^(prof) 11:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

USMC squadrons

have all been battalionized :-) --noclador (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I found the discussion: it was with some guys from the German and on the German wiki. Practically it was a misunderstanding between what a squadron in Germany, the UK and the US is. I think there won't be any discussions now, as you as Marine have a MUCH clearer and better understanding than former members of Germany's army. Are the any other OrBats you need? I currently working on updates of Poland and Switzerland, looking for material about the Israeli air force and finishing a months-long work in creating a (more or less) stable graphic of the New Iraqi Army. --noclador (talk) 07:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

De nada :-) just let me know when there are changes to the USMC Aircraft Wings; --noclador (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

lol - good for you that you speak Spanish; I don't! but Italian and German :-) --noclador (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse my butting in Noclador. From my British/Commonwealth perspective, a battalion (army) = a flying squadron (air force) = a single frigate or destroyer (navy). They're all commanded by Lieutenant Colonels equivalents respectively, and equating the firepower of 12-15 aircraft to the weaponry of only a army company is an underestimate. So I believe your USMC correspondents are correct. Just my opinion. Kind regards Buckshot06(prof) 10:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:Oliver Smith.jpg

Image:Oliver Smith.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Oliver P. Smith.jpg. Commons is a repository of free media that can be used on all MediaWiki wiki's. The image(s) will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Oliver P. Smith.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

TAM going through A-class review

Hey, the article TAM, which falls under the scope of the Military Land Vehicles Task Force, is currently undergoing an A-class review. Your comments are most welcomed! If you don't wish to be notified of future A-class reviews and/or peer reviews that fall under the scope of this task force, please comment on the task force's talk page. Thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal for Template:NGbystate

While I would not object to a merger of the three, however it would be very tricky. You would have to create a template the shows each state's Army National Guard and Air National Guard under the umbrella of the state's National Guard. Also, all state's National Guard are also linked to the National Guard of the United States and it's subcomponents, the Army National Guard of the United States and the Air National Guard of the United States. You may also have to show the correlation between National Guard (militia force) and the National Guard of the United States (reserve military force) so people do not confuse between the two even though they are linked. Neovu79 (talk) 06:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

September Portal update comments

See my comments on the Coordination page - will need to consider image choice. — ERcheck (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Why Iwo Jima for September? Versus for February (month of Flag Raising)? — ERcheck (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

September updates completed. See the Coordination page for comments. In particular, there are two points for discussion with respect to two images that you were considering for September. I've moved all of the ideas forward to October.

Not too early to plan ahead for November. I like to plan something that is in keeping with November being the Marine Corps birthday month. Ideas?

— ERcheck (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 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) 22:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Puerto Rican Campaign

Bahamut0013, I'll tell you the truth, I'll make a total mess with the images. I was wondering if you could "please" help us with your suggestion of "pixel settings from all thumbnails", to see if we could come up with a solution. After that is done I will remove the non-essential images. I will really appreciate your help. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Response by User:RekonDog, Vol. 2

To no offense [again], I have taken, moreorless "copied" your infobox you have but reconstructer it to my favor in which I included my very own photo of myself on that wiki commons site. However I cannot make my side-labels to the HTML color code I want, it is merely white as the background, yours casts indigo of some sort. Any advice? I made you my involuntarily wiki mentor-just in case yo haven't noticed. I consider it Esprit de Corps! Plus, didn't mean to intrude on some of your discussions, but I stumbled in reading the passage about 5th Recon Co. by User talk:Noclador. Since I am the one that type it, I felt that it was my obligation to answer it for you, for the sake of his inquiry. It was my style of thinking, so it would had been easier to elaborate on why it says 'folding into 31st MEU' and such, if you understand.

Also, I feel that I must input the Table of Organization (T/O) soon since I have a more hands-on experience in constructing tables. But since most of the past in Force Recon relates more on chronology (the many deactivations/reactivations), would you have any advisory on any method or style I can use? Because things have changed since 1954 of its first creation into the FMF. So I want to pin-point everything but make it well organized without having to clutter up the article. If you have any knowledge of other similar articles with the T/O with examples or personal knowledge please let me know. All your help is greatly appreciated...Semper Fi!
---User:RekonDog 19:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

USMC edits

A warning was issued to the registered account. If further edits from both accounts occur, since a warning on sockpuppetry has been issued, the next step would be to file a report on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. — ERcheck (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Celebrating Puerto Rican Campaign's GA status
made possible with your help Tony the Marine (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Navbox transclusion

Hi, getting back to you from the Help Desk about your embedded navbox issue, I'm still not entirely sure what you are trying to achieve, however it seems the basic problem here is that the navboxes have borders. Only possible solution I can see would be to add the "border" parameter to each of the US Army/Navy etc templates ( border = {{{border|{{{1}}}}}} ) but those use the Template:Military navigation which would have to be altered the same way. Equendil Talk 20:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Aviation Lists navbox

I've noticed that you have been removing the {{aviation lists}} navbox from aircraft pages, such as on UH-60 Black Hawk, SH-3 Sea King, C-40 Clipper, and Boeing C-32. This template is a standard one for WP:AVIATION and WP:AIR articles, per WP:AIR/PC and WP:AV/Style guide. If this is an intentional deletion, I would suggest you take up the matter at WT:AIR, the project talk page most likely to garner the most discussion, and be able to explain/uphold/change consensus on this issue. Thanks for refraining from removing this template until the matter has been settled. - BillCJ (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't "undo" any of your edits whole, but selectively removed the callsign box from articles where I didn't think it was relvant. I removed it from the C-40 page, as there is no cite in the article regarding its use as AF1 or AF2; I'm sure they can be used on rare occasion for AF1/AF2 duties, but the C-32 is the primary AF2, and back-up AF1 for smaller airfields. I removed it from the SH-3 and UH-60 pages as these pages deal primarily with other major variants, while the VH-3 and VH-60 are covered in more detail on the Marines One page. I should have said that (tho it would have been very short!) in the edit summary, and I apologize for not having done so. - BillCJ (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

National Guard

I saw that you undid my edit to Template:Air National Guard. Unfortunately, in doing so, you restored a link to the disambiguation page National Guard. Links to disambiguation pages are strongly discouraged. If you think Militia (United States) is not the best link in this context, can you suggest another that is not to a disambiguation page? --Russ (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

USMC edits and spelling

Hi, I noticed that your during your correction of a spelling to the local version you obliterated all of my other edits. By this logic, I will attempt to fix your error by reverting all of your changes... please fix your mistake before this happens. Also, the spelling correction was based on a genuine belief that the word was spelled incorrectly (i.e., a typo) rather than anything else; you'll notice that all the other localised spellings are left intact. 87.254.71.212 (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that in the majority of cases that you have edited the quotes are certainly used for emphasis (and are debatable otherwies). Also, I absolutely do believe that the names in question are not proper as per the WP:MOS. Would wou please provide the sources of quotation and a justification for the names status as proper? 87.254.71.212 (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion

My fellow comrades, I'm requesting your participation as an uninvolved party in the following consensus: Gen. Raymond T. Odierno in an effort to terminate an edit-war between the two parties involved . The issue involved has to do with the inclusion in Odierno's biography his participation in the so-called "Surge" or to simply "link" said Surge to an article about said subject. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you all for your valued participation and suggestions on the Gen. Raymond T. Odierno biography. The edit "protection" of the aticle will be lifted soon. Consensus suggest that additional info should be included for his early life and career. Career history should go after the "Early life and education" section. It is recognized that the general's involvement in the planning and undertaking of the surge is notable and should be included in the article, however it should be limited in scope to what was verifiably done by the general and should not weigh too heavily on that particular subject in order to to have a more balanced biography. Final comments welcomed. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Peralta

Sometime ago I read an article (can't remember if it was in Time or Newsweek Magazine) that Peralta's MoH approval was in the President's desk waiting for his signature. I had also read that the current administration was hesitant to award the top military decorations of valor because we were no longer officially at war. They claim that since we are now in what is known as a "police action," it cannot be claimed that our troops are entitled to decorations only awarded to those who are involved in combat. Otherwise, it would be an admittance on our behalf that we are indeed still at "war." You go figure that one out. The thing that bothers me and that I ask myself is: if the MoH was on the Presidents desk how did Gates and his committee end up with the final word? Something is not right. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:question

The advange of creating a new article is that even if you have proper references or not, you can still create it and would be assessed accordingly (we have stub and start assessement levels for such new articles). Another advantage to create it now is that another editor might have proper references and be able to add them in the article. So feel free to do it, and if you have any further problems don't hesitate to contact me again. All the best, --Eurocopter (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: USMC Portal updates

In response to your note:

Biographies on USMC Portal: In 2008 (to-date) 3/7; 2007 - 3/11; 2006 (began in March) - 1/13. Thre have been more this year than in the previous years. I would like to occasionally see biographies asthe Article selection. 2007 is a more typical year - where there were ~25%. My goal/plan was to try to have a balance of different types of topics and from various times in USMC history. I don't find too many bases have articles that are sufficiently strong — though I think it would be nice to feature major bases such as Camp Pendleton, Camp Butler, and Camp Lejeune. Iconic battles such as Belleau Wood and Iwo Jima, etc. I'd like to have iconic USMC topics featured during Novembers. — ERcheck (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Check out the ideas for "Coordination" for October. I'm in favor of the Battle of Belleau Wood for November's article. — ERcheck (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you think it the best idea for October's Article? Since the new image is black and white, I think the accompanying photo should be color and not a battle scene. How about for biography? Since last month's Article and Biography (still posted) were more modern (with color photos), I think for variety, the biography should be one that has a black and white portrait. (Already updated for October - Quote, News, Photo.) — ERcheck (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Article - how about 1st Battalion 1st Marines, using the "SOUTHERN AFGHANISTAN" photo from near the end of the document?
• Biography - how about William A. Eddy (with WWI picture), Katherine Amelia Towle, or James Devereux (or in December - Wake Island month)?

— ERcheck (talk) 02:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Remaining updates: Biography - done, Image - done, Quote - done, News - done. Remaining - Article and DYK.

• Article: The World War II image in the 1/1 article (at Shuri Castle) was already the image used on the Article (May 2007) when the Battle of Okinawa was the Article. *** This is National Hispanic Heritage Month, so I suggest Hispanics in the United States Marine Corps, which is a comprehensive article, while 1/1 needs some work for balance. I'll be gone much of the day today, so if you haven't made the update by this evening, I'll do it. — ERcheck (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• DYK: Would you please make that sword addition that you mentioned on my talk page?

— ERcheck (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK done. — ERcheck (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. — ERcheck (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Help

That would be awesome. I know from having brought the articles up to FA status that there should be some information on gunfire support during the '91 gulf war in the articles USS Missouri (BB-63) and USS Wisconsin (BB-64), if I recall correctly the reports concern the use of 3 and 5 inch guns for ngs as opposed to 16 inch guns of the two BBs and there respective performance during the war. I was going to use this as a starting point to back track to WWII and show the progress smaller guns have made, over the years. I was also considering the addition of a section on missiles v guns, in part to satisfy a concern rasied on the talk page of the article in which an experimental missile system using Tomohawks was suggested as a replacement. I have been trying to locate a few WWII battles in which ngs played a descive factor; I vaguely remeber two of note, one involving destoyers using guns to aid with the defense of a port in Europe, the other concerning the role that two BBs played in repulsing a german counteract on an allied line, both of which I think took place between june and december 1944. The major hiccup for all this was the naming issue; I elected to withold eny major expansion so as to aviod addressing FAC concerns until we got the article to its current name. SandyGeorgia explained that it was a pain to do this during an FAC, so I didn't want make things harder than they already were. Also, if your interested, we a Featured Topic workshop set up here to facilitate a push for the Iowa class battleship to FT status, you are welcome to add your name there if you like. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have started some initial work on addressing the pro battleship bias, mainly adding a section dealing with alternitves for NGS. I am waiting for some feedback at the FAC before proceeding with the sections in any major capacity. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 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) 21:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC

Sorry, I was editing the prior version by accident, from following the last dif. Johnbod (talk) 11:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your question

About your question on Repairables Management Division article: This is similar to another unit that was recently deleted by {{prod}}. I suggest that you use the "prod" — which is for non-controversial deletions that don't meet speedy deletions. (If there is an objection, you can then move the process to AFD.) The process for prod is

1. Type {{subst:prod|YOUR REASON HERE}} on the top of the RMD article.
2. Go to the original creator's talk page and place {{subst:prodwarning|Repairables Management Division}} ~~~~ on the page to notify of the deletion request

For the similar situation, the reasoning I used was "Not sufficiently notable for own article. In general, battalions and regiments have articles, not individual companies."

If you have any questions on the process, let me know. — ERcheck (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Template: US Army navbox

Per your query here: Template talk:US Army navbox. Would it be appropriate to somehow include the Chemical Corps? --IvoShandor (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response anyway. I went ahead and added it, the Chemical Corps is on par with the Signal Corps or the Ordnance Corps or any of the various branches, so it fits right in. --IvoShandor (talk) 05:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

just wanted to say

thank you very much for your service to our country Mkustel (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Air National Guard

The edits look fine to me, and I'm also very impressed by the navbox within navbox design you did. Excellent. Bwmoll3 (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Response from RekonDog

Thanks for the info, didn't know such section existed..but I'm unsure how that DYK thing works...otherwise I'll be glad to submit it; it would been useful for the Amphibious Reconnaissance Battalion article I created awhile back too. And yes, I'm attending the ball...if I can make the time.
RekonDog 01:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

November Portal update

November is coming soon. Seeking your input on the Biography. I have some comments here. Also, see my response to your comment on the picture. — ERcheck (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Dan Rather as a Marine

Nothing creditable. I just did a Google search and came up with a bunch of pages disputing his service. Since the addition came from an anon IP and wasn't cited I decided to undo it. But here are the pages I looked at [1] [2] [3]. Hope this helps. Mikemill (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10