Talk:Construction Battalion Maintenance Unit 302

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Maritime / North America / United States / Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Copyvio

Book is available from Google Books here: http://books.google.com/books?id=o3qerih7KIcC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=On+or+about+September+15,+1967,+the+main+body+was+airlifted+from+Port+Hueneme,+Ca.+to+Cam+Ranh+Bay,+Vietnam.+Two+Details&source=bl&ots=8OLteCxzur&sig=cAJ0MxP3-u5aiusn-ZbcyS6IKSw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aNQFUKncH6bm0QHli4W9CA&ved=0CEwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=On%20or%20about%20September%2015%2C%201967%2C%20the%20main%20body%20was%20airlifted%20from%20Port%20Hueneme%2C%20Ca.%20to%20Cam%20Ranh%20Bay%2C%20Vietnam.%20Two%20Details&f=false Zell Faze (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DBQIOWA

The book mentioned for possible copyright violation is a cruise book available to anyone who was in a unit, ship, squadron, etc. The information in it is usually common information for those who were in the assigned unit for the time mentioned. I have used said information from memory, uncopyrighted articles published by Seabee units/ departments. Any copyrighted facts are not taken from the said publication. This can and has occurred in other forms of communication without any attempt to violate copyright laws. This is my first time using the talk page and first article for any print form. I'm trying not to violate any of these laws. Please show me how to convey the my unit information without violating any of these laws. Thank you. 7.17.2012 1837 Dbqiowa (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've perused the cruise book noted. I've rewritten and changed a sentence plus added some new material. I've saved the page. Maybe that will pass the possible copyright violation. The noted cruise book is listed as a reference.Dbqiowa (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be too alarmed. No one is angry, this is a common mistake for new editors. I would read Wikipedia:Non-free_content. It will give you an overview of what is and what is not acceptable for use on Wikipedia. In short though, you can't copy and paste text from another publication. You can though write an article based upon that text using the text as a reference. It has to be substantially different though.

If you rewrite this page fairly well it won't get deleted. If no one else does anything, I'll check back here in a week or so. Let me know if you need any help with formatting your article. Zell Faze (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DBQIOWA

I didn't copy and past any material. Some of the words may be the same. To help the situation I rewrote some of the material in question so it may be more acceptable. I saved it. Are you able to check it? I am new at this. The tone of the above test seemed rather strong and accusing without asking me to correct the test. This is a shocking situation to come into when this can be overwhelming for a new timer. If you delete the text why not just ask me to rewrite it? There seems to be a bit strong in actions. 76.19.122.235 (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that quite a lot of the words are the same. For example, this paragraph:

In December 1975 , CBMU-302 established a Detail at Camp Cummins, Diego Garcia to provide maintenance included, air conditioning, refrigeration, ice production and electrical distribution maintenance. This detail was destablished February 1983 and has the distinction of having the longest continuous detail in Diego Garcia, with over seven years of Service.

Is a word for word copy of part of Naval Construction Maintenance Unit 302. Changing a few words here and there does not substantially modify the text. Articles on Wikipedia need to be entirely original material, perhaps loosely based off another article. The important thing to remember here though is that all of the words must be YOUR words as opposed to someone else's. As the article stands right now, it is still a problem.

No one here, particularly me, means to be harsh. I'm sorry about how some of the warning templates are worded. Their wording is the subject of an on-going debate. I often agree that our warning templates are harsh. Also, the text of your article is not deleted, it is still there, just hidden from casual view until the problems with the article can be corrected. Zell Faze (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may also wish to read this: Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing. It describes one of the problems you are having here and the best ways to solve it. Zell Faze (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DBQIOWA

Thanks for the links to material I need to read and understand. I'll attempt to reword the offending section to make it acceptable. This is the only way I'll learn how to writer better in the future. Thank for being understanding.Dbqiowa (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've saved a rewritten copy of my article. Please let me know if there are still any issues with the page so I can attend with them. Thanks.Dbqiowa (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Construction Battalion Maintenance Unit THREE ZERO TWO → Construction Battalion Maintenance Unit 302 –

The usual way to write numbers. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - All U.S. Navy Naval Construction Force (NCF) units are formally written out as this page's title is right now. This allows the reader to know exactly how to verbally say the name. '302' could be incorrectly pronounced as 'Three Hundred Two' or 'Three Oh Two', but neither is correct. Another good example is Naval Mobile Construction Battalion ONE THIRTY THREE, which could be incorrectly pronounced as 'One Three Three' or 'One Hundred Thirty Three'. Also see external official references here, here, and here. As long as there are redirects, casual spellings can all refer to the correct naming convention. Highspeed (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support WP:OFFICIALNAME we don't necessarily use the official spelling. And "THREE ZERO TWO" violates MOS:CAPS. WP:PRECISE spelling it out is overly precise as well. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. We don't write out words or numbers in weird ways just because the US Navy does so. Note that the US Navy themselves happily use the numerical form.[1] -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per nom. The article needs some other work too - would really benefit from some secondary sourcing. bobrayner (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Construction Battalion Maintenance Unit 302. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]