User talk:JKGolden

Welcome!

Hello, JKGolden, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JKGolden

Noticed your great work on US Army divisions, especially on the little known formations. Have you realised through that a great number of your new articles may not be able to be anything more than stubs at any point, especially the divisions that were never actually activated? Would it not be better to write an article on the 27th Armoured Division (United States), which did serve years postwar, rather than a one line article on the U.S. 22nd Armored Division? For example, I wrote up the 50th Armored Division (United States) some time ago. It is not really too helpful to have articles which will only have three lines ever, which could be incorporated into Military history of the United States for example or history of the US Army during WW2. Please don't take these thoughts as criticism; you've made a great start! Cheers Buckshot06 11:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good ideas. One thing that you really need to do however is stop using extra suffixes. The (United States) (or (United Kingdom) or (Brazil) or whatever) is to identify the owning country without implying the name of the unit is fully 'British 6th Airborne Division' or whatever. The (Before World War I) brackets don't work, and will have to be removed; either by merging articles or by renaming (that 'Move' tag at the top of each page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckshot06 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambigating three different U.S. 11th Divisions? Not a problem. Do a page called 11th Division (United States) and list all three - 11th Div, 11th Infantry Div, 11th Airborne Division, 11th Armoured Division etc. Actually, I'll do an example for you. It will save you time and wasted effort, because you cannot change the suffix conventions within the project without consensus on the WP:MIL project talk page, and without that, even if I don't change them, someone else will. I'll set the example disambig page up. Also I should say the standard is now Xth Div (Name of Country) - the other examples are simply old entries that haven't been changed. Cheers Buckshot06 12:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look now at 11th Division (United States). When or if the pre WW1 division information becomes big enough to merit a full article, the disambig tag is removed and italic disambigs are added at the top - see Task force for an example. Buckshot06 12:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you're keeping up the great work. However the Divisions of the US Army seem a big enough subject to have a main article of their own, rather than having everything split up among many smaller confusing pages. Do you feel like doing a Divisions of the United States Army main article, rather like the Divisions of the Soviet Union 1917-1945 and List of Soviet Army divisions 1989-91. It would be a great main article for Category:Divisions of the United States Army, and could have all your references and sources at the bottom. Tell me what you think. Cheers Buckshot06 15:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! I suggest we have a good think about which pages can now be deactivated and merged into the new main page - my thoughts so far would include Divisions of the Mexican Revolution, for a start, as only divs are listed there and it mirrors your 1911-17 section, as well as Phantom World War II Divisions (United States), plus Unorganized World War II Divisions (United States). Would you also mind sourcing your footnotes?Buckshot06 21:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on! The idea of doing one page at Divisions of the United States was to consolidate and incorporate most of the information on as many smaller less linked to the rest of project-pages as possible. What you probably don't know is that it's possible to set up a redirect specifically to a certain section of a page, for example Multi-National Division - Baghdad. Deleting? Most pages aren't deleted, they're just left as redirects. Take a look at Soviet Armed Forces for example, and when you get through to Military of the Soviet Union, click on the very small text under the title. However there is WP:AFD. Apologies if I'm telling you stuff you already know. Cheers Buckshot06 06:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

13th Division (United States)(Prior to World War I)

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article 13th Division (United States)(Prior to World War I), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6th Division (United States)(Prior to World War I)

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article 6th Division (United States)(Prior to World War I), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:ESBSSI.jpg

File:ESBSSI.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:1EngrBdeSSI.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image 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: [[File:1EngrBdeSSI.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:WWI10D.JPG missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:WWI10D.JPG is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

16th Infantry Division (United States) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 16th Infantry Division (United States). Since you had some involvement with the 16th Infantry Division (United States) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]