Jump to content

User talk:Looper5920/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Assessment kinda

[edit]

Whoohoo first post! Anyway, I was hoping you might look through another list of mine and tell me if you see any changes that could be made or any improvements, United States Navy enlisted rate insignia. I'm still working on the last few sections but I just want to get an overall feel of the layout and information. Don't beat me up on references for the last bit since I'm still working on them. If you have time thanks.— WilsBadKarma (Talk) 02:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal for February

[edit]

I've made some suggestions on the Coordination page. Have a look, add your ideas. I've tried to look forward in the sections below the monthly. — ERcheck (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready for prime time since it is has "missing" tags in a few months, but Cactus Air Force would be a great article to be featured in the Portal. Any possibility that you could fill out those sections? — ERcheck (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

flight deck personnel on Amphibs

[edit]

This was the last entry in the last archive so I will repost here:

Hate to bother you with a Professional Knowledge question but I was curious if you knew. On big deck amphibs, LHDs and LHAs, are all the deck crew Marines? So, no Sailors serve as QA, Safety Officers (white shirts), or LSOs, correct? --ProdigySportsman 20:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't claim to be an expert on this but when I was on the MEU the flight deck personnel were Navy and Marine. I didn't think any one service had a monopoly on those jobs. (Looper5920 writing in from work where he can no longer log in)--203.10.224.60 01:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both the CV and LHA/LHD flight decks have a mix of ship's company (USN) and squadron personnel serving in various roles on the flightdeck. On an amphib, the squadron personnel (except corpsman) will be 100% Marine. On a CV, which also can have a USMC Hornet squadron, it will be whatever personnel the squadron has assigned to flightdeck duty. HJ 02:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Assessments from unregistered user

[edit]

Ah, no problem. It's no big deal, in any case, even if random people are assessing things; everything up to B-Class is meant to be pretty fluid. Kirill Lokshin 21:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Portal

[edit]

VMFA-314, which you just edited, looks good. (I just removed some non-notable video game trivia.) There are some great pictures down in the article which can be used — perhaps Image:McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom VMFA-314 1.jpg, which I show here. — ERcheck (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm out the door right now. Running late. — ERcheck (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also really like HMM-261, with this image. I don't think a helicopter squadron has been featured yet. — ERcheck (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did some copyediting on HMM-261, including formatting citations, etc. So, good to go if you choose this one. — ERcheck (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added another News item and DYK to the Portal. — ERcheck (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with a vandal

[edit]

Hello there I just wanted to see if there is a way you could help me I am having trouble with a guy that is constantly changing the number of killed american Marines at the battle of Ubaydi near Al Qaim from 9 to 31 which is just stupid and total fiction. Contrary to all the prove gathered he just keep changing it back and puts a reference which yes states that 31 were killed but in the whole of Anbar during that period. When I confronted him with this he said that the oepration was for the whole of Anbar province, he doesn't understand that operation Matador was only at the revier towns on the Sirian border near Al Qaim. Can you help.Top Gun 04:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next collabortion article

[edit]

3/3 has only been the collaboration article for a few weeks. How about History of the United States Marine Corps as the next one. I don't think it is far from being FA. It would be nice to get it to that point. — ERcheck (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MCAS El Toro article

[edit]

I see you reverted the change to MCAS El Toro. To prevent a revert war, please add your comments to the article's talk page. — ERcheck (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image: What year was Image:Overhead MCAS El Toro in 1944.jpg taken? Does the image give a credit to the photographer? — ERcheck (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping to make wikipedia so great! My edits for Col. Sabow are based in part on my desire to ensure that military personnel who commit their lives to the decisions of their superiors (civilian and uniformed) know that their lives are valued and their commitment is regarded with respect. There's a lot more to do beyond edits on wikipedia, but wikitruth is something. Semper fidelis! JPatrickBedell 10:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea of what you speak. You say you want to honor the man? How, by posting his autopsy photos all over the internet? You're a dirt bag. Stay off my talk page.--Looper5920 10:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns

[edit]
  1. The user page picture. Looking through the historical user page, I'm guessing that the editor was borrowing a line of text from a page he's seen, as it is only the caption has the questionable material. Expanding the picture, it is apparently from Sabow's autopsy. I suggest that you leave a note on the editor's talk page indicating that the caption does not describe the picture, etc.
  2. Agree on the user subpage. It appears that it was {{prod}} tagged and the owner removed it; which is acceptable. The next step is a full AFD.

— ERcheck (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I revise my statement #1. The editor uploaded the picture to WikiCommons yesterday with the caption "Scan of two cannabis seeds and two cannabis seedlings next to inkjet printed page. Own work, released to public domain." This is obviously a false attribution, meant to get around copyvios. I'm about to go out of the door. If you choose to point out that the editor should request that page be deleted from Commons because it is incorrectly uploaded/named, feel free, else I'll try to address it later. — ERcheck (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made an attempt to communicate to the editor the relevant policies for both Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. I hope that he is willing to abide by Wiki guidelines and that he is not here to use this as a way to advance his personal mission to see "justice" for Col. Sabow. — ERcheck (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry about not completely reading your note. You said right side of the page. Now I see it. The image violates WP:NOT - self-promotion. I've left a note on the editor's talk page asking that it be removed. — ERcheck (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad...I should have been more specific. I did mean your other right.--Looper5920 11:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MILHIST Assessments

[edit]

Wow! If you didn't already have a Barnstar for helping out with clearing the backlog of unassessed articles, I'd give you one. Excellent work! LordAmeth 20:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Marine Corps battalions

[edit]

Where is 1st Reg (of 1st Marine Division) here? I thought it was there once before. Maybe not. --ProdigySportsman 20:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reguesting your opinion

[edit]

Someone wants to rename the Categories of the Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, Silver Star and Bronze Star Medals, to something like this: "Category:Recipients of the United States Purple Heart medal".

I personally oppose this move because these military decorations are only awarded om the United States and therefore cannot be confused with some other country's decoration. I see no need for the move. As a person who has been involved with United States military related articles, I invite you to express your opinion here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. Thank you, Tony the Marine 02:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sabow article

[edit]

There has been additional discussion on the James Sabow AFD as well as the subpage MFD. — ERcheck (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over-the-beach capability

[edit]

The term "over-the-beach capability" shows up a number of times in a Google search.[1]

If you enter the term in the search box of http://www.globalsecurity.org , there are a number of uses of the term. It is also found on the New Zealand Ministry of Defence site.

As such, it shouldn't be {{prod}}ed as a neologism. It certainly needs a lot of cleanup.

— ERcheck (talk) 06:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough, i now realize i should have done that in my sandbox. i had already spent lots time on the research and wanted to make it available. thanks for the feedback (Jschager 09:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Philadelphia Meetup 3

[edit]

FYI. We we're planning a Philadelphia area Wikipedia meetup. See Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia 3 --ike9898 15:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USMC article needs work

[edit]

Ross Lindsey Iams--203.10.224.60 01:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MAG-26

[edit]

MAG-26 has a new patch...

http://www.2maw.usmc.mil/MAG26/MAG26/images/mag26new.gif —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.56.227.57 (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Tags

[edit]

Sorry about that. I tend to just put the template on my clipboard with "yes" next to the task forces that are relevent to the general topic I'm looking at, then just start pasting it to the talk pages. I'll try to be more mindful in the future. And by the way, kudos on finishing up the assessments. I know others did assessments too, but the vast majority of them were by you. Amazing job--Nobunaga24 05:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean about the perception people have in other countries about America. I am reminded of a story I heard, reputed to be true, of a group of Japanese people asked to draw a picture of what they thought of America. One person's picture was of Michael Jackson holding a gun. I am constantly having to smash the perceptions of a lot of my students (and even my girlfriend) have about the U.S. But the thing that kills me about some of the non-American foreigners here is that they can have their stereotypes about Americans, but heaven help you if you have even the most minor, benign stereotype about their country. The only country's citizens in Japan that haven't yet rubbed me the wrong way are the Irish and Jamaicans (God bless 'em). Ok, I guess that is my rant...--Nobunaga24 06:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on the Irish. They are unassuming and just out to have a good time, meet people, etc... I will not list my top ten shit list of whiny cunts but needless to say the list is long and distinguished... like my ... I almost went for the full Top Gun line but ultimately refrained. --Looper5920 06:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article assessments

[edit]

Thanks for taking the time to assess some of the aircraft articles, but it would be much more helpful if you would also add comments (there's a link provided in the fine print) about why you chose that particular rating, even if it's just one or two sentences. That would be a big help to those of us who've written the aritles, to know where we need to improve, or what additional information you expect to see in them. Thanks! Akradecki 14:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please engage in a serious discussion on Pantano's talk page.

[edit]

Please engage in a serious discussion on Pantano's talk page.

An immediate reversion, without serious discussion, is bait for an edit war -- but I am going to avoid biting.

Please show more collegiality and a greater spirit of cooperation. Remember, wikipedia is not a battlefield.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 22:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will not sit around and let people call individuals "War criminals" if that is what you mean by collegiality. I will revert it every time it is placed on the page. One only needs to look at WP:BLP to see why. The cateegory is called "Iraq war crimes". It is bogus to put in alledged "War crimes." Who shall be the arbiter of what is an alledged war crime? You? Me? I don't think so. An individual is either a war criminal or they are not. To say alledgedly and then place that category on their page is plain wrong. In no way do I consider that reversion an edit war. It is removing vandalism pure and simple --Looper5920 23:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking

[edit]

[2] It is long established that users are perfectly entitled to blank their user pages and remove warnings that they have read. Please assume good faith don't revert such without good reason. Thanks.--Docg 00:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New article

[edit]

See new article on John K. Davis, USMC, created by JPatrickBedell. — ERcheck (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Knights Templar

[edit]

Hiya, I guess I'm a bit confused about how the WikiProject's assessment process is working, so perhaps you could help me? Currently the box on the Templar talkpage has several entries like "References, not checked; Structure, not checked; etc." How do I get those checked? Do I just go through them myself, or is there a more formal process that's needed? Thanks, Elonka 09:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are refering to the B-class process I am assuming. I am sorry that I did not add that to the article's talk page. I would encourage you to fill those out yourself as up to a B-class rating the project is very flexible. I was borderline on whether or not the article should be B-class so please be honest if making your own assessments. It is a bit light in references and a bit light in content considering how much history they have. Hopefully this helps. Cheers--Looper5920 09:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll work on those, and then submit it for a MilHist peer review. :) --Elonka 09:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Have you been thinking about plans to bring the Portal to featured status? We could start with a general outline for each featured box, perhaps rotating between bios, bases, infantry units, aviation units, etc.

Check your e-mail. — ERcheck (talk) 11:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MCAS El Toro

[edit]

Please review my recent comment on the MCAS El Toro talk page. As you have been a major contributor to the article, I'd appreciate your comments. — ERcheck (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roundels, et al

[edit]

I appreciate your addition of the USMC logo on the C-130 crashes page, but the identifying marks are really for the NATIONAL identification, not the individual departments. The lion share of lost C-130s are from the USAF, but we're not using the Department of the US Air Force logo to i.d. them. All US military services carry the national insignia that is rightly or wrongly coded "USAF roundel" - not the individual service badges, themselves. I'm sure that the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy have individual emblems - but all still use the same roundel, not counting lo-viz variations.

Mark Sublette 14:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 14:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military History elections

[edit]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:2coverdos gringos.gif)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:2coverdos gringos.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Sand20trap.jpg)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Sand20trap.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of articles

[edit]

Do you agree with the inclusion of the articles you mentioned? I'm reluctant to fix up an article that is on AFD unless I feel that it will survived AFD or have a chance of surviving. Time spent on an article to be deleted seems a waste. On the other hand ... — ERcheck (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I said earlier.... I personnally may not have created them but now that they are here they meet the requirements. These men have been appointed by congress, have commanded major combat units and some have done so in combat. They meet the criteria as I have stated in my votes to keep them. I think at this point our duty is to make sure they are well represented. Thoughts?--Looper5920 13:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your point about well-represented is my "on the other hand." What a mess. I tried to make some major edits to one, but got caught in an edit conflict. A lot of "citation needed" tags; but as the bulk of the article seems to be from the USMC bio, that is an easy ref — I think that came from having it as a footnote for one item rather than as an overall reference, which I fixed. Also, trying to slip in an OC Weekly article ref — take a look and see about notabililty/validity/reliability. I'll return later. — ERcheck (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know the biggest problem... It's that there is someone creating USMC info and they cannot be trusted. By that I mean whenever I see you name and a select few others I never question the edit. I just assume it is good to go and it is just one more thing I do not have to worry about when I go through my watchlist. Now there is a loose cannon out there and it is a pain in the butt. Even after the contentious beginning, it may be in our best interests to work with him as long as he is creating USMC material. --Looper5920 13:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Especially important to strictly adhere to WP:BLP. See my comments on Talk:John K. Davis. — ERcheck (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sock IPs

[edit]

I've blocked Mr.Banana for a week. If the vandalism continues, give me a call and I'll semi the article. Cheers, and good luck... yandman 12:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a number of IPs are being used to make the same edits as Marshalbannana; and Yandman has handled some of it. The change in numbers is not supported by the reference given by the IP; and the edit summaries are deliberately misleading. A case of vandalism and 3RR. Looks like there are a number of folks keeping a watch on vandalism of this article. (BTW, the IPs are editing from the same city; evidence of sockpuppetry.) Take care. — ERcheck (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help--Looper5920 01:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal updates

[edit]

I recently added a DYK for the Portal. One source was the monthly histories from the USMC History site, but they haven't updated it to February yet. Do you have any new items you could add? The rest have been up for quite a while. — ERcheck (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets everywhere

[edit]

Another sockpuppet came out of the woodwork. Amazing. Since it is the same editor, and Wikipedia policy on sockpuppets specifically prohibits using sockpuppets to avoid 3RR, 3+ the sockpuppets is not needed to invoke 3RR. In fact, taken as a single editor making these edits, I see this as grounds for immediate blocking. I've blocked the latest, but will be gone a bit. — ERcheck (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

[edit]

You're welcome! I find it pretty funny when one of these people makes some shrill promise "you'll never stop me! ha ha ha!" thinking they can wear out 1200 administrators and thousands more good editors who actually enjoy reverting vandalism. Shoveling sand against the tide, they are. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Just wanted to say thank you for the help dealing with the guy that is vandalizing all of my pages.--Looper5920 03:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sure. I was happy to though It was crazy. Different IPs hitting it multiple times so a simple undo wouldn't work. Guy was nuts. --Xiahou 03:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Shoveling sand against the tide, they are." I like that what it feels like at times. Do they not realize a simple undo or a two edit or more RV takes care of it. With a complete history at our fingertips its not like we can't look back. Oh well. "Shoveling sand against the tide, they are." :-)--Xiahou 03:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just back. Looks like there are lots of folks helping. I'll check it out now. — ERcheck (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just an FYI... I semi-protected all of your user sub-pages and talk archives that were being targeted. If I missed something, another admin can protect whatever I missed. -- Gogo Dodo 06:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that was a rather coordinated effort by many different IPs. That a common thing? --Xiahou 03:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that was a first. I don't know whether I should be pissed off or honored. Again, thanks for the help. Although I have a feeling he will be back soon enough. Cheers--Looper5920 03:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Clark

[edit]

Thanks, but that's where about half the images have already come from, I know the site. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CAF quick question response

[edit]

With as much material as there is available on the Cactus Air Force (CAF), there isn't any reason at all that it shouldn't make FA. My plan was to assist in taking as many of the sub-articles for the Guadalcanal campaign to FA as possible, including the sub-battles and other associated articles such as CAF and Tokyo Express, before finally finishing and submitting the main Guadalcanal campaign article for FA. We just have to take the information that's available and get it into the CAF article, as you know a time-consuming and laborious process. The outline that you've placed in the article gives us the framework to get it done. I think it's well on its way.

I was reading and making notes in Miller's CAF yesterday while standing in the unbelievably long lines at Tokyo Disneyland. So, in the future you may be seeing some text with Miller citations appearing in the article. Cla68 22:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds great. I have tried to buy Miller's book now for awhile but have been unable. Amazon doesn't have it...go figure. I guess I'll have to find a used copy somewhere.--Looper5920 01:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I bought a used paperback copy from Half.com. It cost $1.50 plus $3 shipping. It's a small paperback that fits easily into my coat pocket but contains an incredible amount of information about the subject written very well. I'd put in my top four books related to the Guadalcanal campaign. Cla68 09:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now your just rubbing it in. Just kidding. I was actually thinking today about absolutely essential books that I own and the 2 that came to mind are Robert Sherrod's History of Marine Corps Aviation in World War II and Gordon Rottman's U.S. Marine Corps World War II Order of Battle. They are the USMC WWII equivalent of the bible. I will continue to try and find a copy of Miller's book. Cheers.--Looper5920 09:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Nowak

[edit]

I've filed an incident report requesting article protection against the current spree. Any other suggestions? Rklawton 03:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MCAS El Toro

[edit]

You're welcome. I tend to write and re-write talk page comments like that to get the wording right. I try to be concise, which forces me to focus on the policy/guideline in question and prevents me from having room to say anything uncivil! | Mr. Darcy talk 05:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, on the other hand, tend to get fired up and shoot from the hip which leads me to post comments I absolutely regret later. Oh well....--Looper5920 07:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Favor

[edit]

Of course I'll look it over. I'm not the best copy editor in the world but I'll lay some fresh eyes on it. I totally forgot about telling you about what I dug up on VMX-22. They are in fact still active and just came back from a WTI. I have put together a few sources including some Marine Corps newspaper articles. They are surprisingly hard to get info on but I have a buddy that used to work on the Ospreys. I'll get back to you about both things. NeoFreak 07:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be more than happy too. It will probably have to wait until morning though since having a sleepy pair of eyes won't do you much good. I'll reply back when I'm done. And thank you for asking.Cheers — WilsBadKarma (Talk) 07:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I went through the list and before I go any further I suck at MOS thats why I stick to lists and portals when I'm trying to get something featured. Anyway, It looks awesome I couldn't really find much wrong with it. I did correct some spelling errors and added a line about the meaning of the "V" designation. I will say it seems out of place to have intro's about some of the headings and not about others. I know it's hard to say something about every squadron type but I think that would make it look more uniform. I hope I have been some help let me know if there is anything else I can do. I'm about to put my third list up for featued so I may call on you to take a look at it before I list it. Cheers — WilsBadKarma (Talk) 01:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that some of the squadron types do not have an intro is that they fly the same aircraft as the sections above. For the most part they are training squadrons. I'll see what I can do to drum something up for them. I also need to add something for VMS-3 and expand a few more. Thanks for the help.--Looper5920 10:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-since

[edit]

Re: Asher Heimermann, why? What more information do you/wikipedia need? Tony16 07:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall

[edit]

Thanks for the help reverting the vandalism on my talk page, I think I'm going to have to keep it semiprotected until he gets bored. Cheers! yandman 11:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


CIA edit

[edit]

Dear Looper5920,

I respectfully ask you to reconsider your recent edit (a reversion) to the entry CIA. Additional information is available on my discussion page. Cheers, Prof77 20:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am sorry but your only edits have been to add the same book name to a series of related articles without even using them as references. It appears like you are advertising the book and this really is not the place for that. Cheers.--Looper5920 10:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have done good work on wikipedia -- and I'm a newbie -- so you deserve some explanation. My goal is to expand wikipedia resources to include primary source collections. I'm currently adding from the same 10 volume set because I have and know that set. The editors are respected colleagues -- but I am not an employee of their company (nor did I ask permission to add the resources). All of my links are to the library of Congress, not commercial sites. At this time I can specifically match the resources (speeches, letters, news articles, etc) to specific articles. Because I do all my wiki work at once (usually Saturdays) it probably looks like spam. It's not, however, the links are specific. Now that i now that they belong only in Further Reading, that is where they will be put. It WAS my error put them in references. I understand how wikipedia defines that section now.

Good show on the USMC stuff. I'm a former aviator-- and so at least I had a Marine DI for 16 weeks at P'cola.

If you would reconsider, I'd appreciate it -- but I'll respect your decision.

Cheers, Prof77 00:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Looper5920/Articles created

[edit]

A couple of IPs created this page and added 330k of NSFW pictures and other vandalism. Since you've never edited it, I went ahead and blanked the page. Dave6 talk 04:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Favor response

[edit]

I read the List of Marine Squadrons article and it looks very good to me. The only suggestion I could think of would be to put the references in the "futher reading" section into the "cite book" and "cite web" formats like what is used in the CAF article. I think it's about ready for nomination for featured list. I take it that you work in Marine aviation? I've encountered Marine aviators at times around here in Japan. Cla68 00:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for looking it over. I'll make the changes in a bit. There are still a few more things I need to do before I nominate it but she's close. Let's just say that Marine aviation has become a great interest of mine in the last year or so. I have become quite the amazon.com user amassing a decent library by this point. Again, thanks for the help.--Looper5920 10:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx - that wuz de proof wot I be looking for

[edit]

Looper-Man! Thanks for passing along this link. Interestingly, an anonymous i.d. editor (with no other record) listed this incident on 13 February but I was a tad wary of proclaiming the loss of the very first J-model Herc as there was no source given. This link wot yew done give me is the verification I was looking for!

Sub* Mark Sublette 04:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 04:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed - Irish American

[edit]

Hi, I need your support on the discussion page of Irish American where some pestilent English dude is trying to vote out the List of Presidents of Irish Descent. I cannot imagine an article on Irish America which didn't list these men - the very idea is absurd to me...like writing about Northern Ireland and not mentioning sectarianism. I have no idea where 'Logistic' has come from so late in the day but this appears to be another ego problem where he simply wants to stir up a row. That is my view. The section has stood long enough and was welcomed by the overwhelming majority of editors. Please comment there and ask another editor to support it. Please don't comment on my userpage - Logistic is becoming my stalker already and I don't want to encourage him. Very much obliged to you, Iamlondon 00:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above post is a violation of WP:NPA and is quite unacceptable. I see no evidence to substantiate the accusations. Tyrenius 01:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Comcast Tower.jpg)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Comcast Tower.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Crashintome4196 03:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week left to plan Portal update

[edit]

Do you have a target month for working on moving toward a featured status?

Want to weigh in on articles, photos, etc. for March?

— ERcheck (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:IL76 Landing Roll.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:IL76 Landing Roll.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

[edit]

I intended too. I just got sleepy last night. lol.Cheers — WilsBadKarma (Talk) 20:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to stall the article assessing machine that is Looper. I knocked out about 50 of them but I tagged over 500 last night so I guess that leaves a way to go. I'm gonna work on somemore tonight. Have fun Cheers — WilsBadKarma (Talk) 08:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

[edit]
The Barnstar of Diligence
I award this Barnstar of Diligence to Looper5920 for his dedication to the List of United States Marine Corps aircraft squadrons having made over 550 edits during a 14 month period to make this list what it is today. Cheers — WilsBadKarma (Talk) 08:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OIF Casualties

[edit]

Before I undertake this, I would like for you to advise on the issue.

There were 20 Marines from the Lima 3/25 KIA last year. I am wondering about posting a small acknowledgment of their each of their losses and a page for Lima 3/25, loss, short biography, awards, and links back to their hometown paper articles.

Swump 17:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please do not create the article. I do not like to do it but in the past have had very well written articles on Marines that have died deleted because death in combat does not make one notable in and of itself.. Just because someone died in battle does not mean they rate a page here. Capt Morel does because he was the recipient of a Navy Cross, the Marine Corps's second highest award for valor. Many units have lost alot of people it does not mean they rate a page. Think of it in a larger context of every war and battle. Do we write article's for the millions of men that never made it home from the wars last century? I would say that the at the most there should be a sentence on the battalion's page stating how many men were lost during their recent deployment to Iraq and I probably wouldn't even break it down by company. --Looper5920 19:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks Swump 04:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Brent Morel - wondering why the Navy Cross picture was removed. As far as references being changed from a table back to the old format, It was my intent to add more links in a neat way in a table, instead of having them run down the left side of the page.
As far as removing the EGA, Chesty Puller will visit you.
Semper fi Swump 06:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your best bet is to stick with the WP:MOS. I realize you are well intentioned but it is probably best to work witnin the accepted framework. As for removing the EGA and purple heart...they were out of place and should not have been there in the first place.--Looper5920 07:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>>>> What I would like to do is use the table approach so the left margin is not running down the page, and will appear neater. I would like to restore the Navy Cross Medal just as it is with Brian Chontosh. that will pretty much be it, except for occasional external links. Swump 15:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:USMC film list

[edit]

You have commented on the AFD discussion for List of films featuring United States Marines, the discussion can be viewed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring United States Marines.

Following support for my suggestion, I have done a userspace rewrite of the article at User:Saberwyn/Films featuring the United States Marine Corps, with the rewritten article in the top half and the current article with annotations as to their inclusion or non-inclusion in the rewritten list.

I would like to request that you review the rewritten article, and if you think it is appropriate, amend your stance at the AFD discussion. -- saberwyn 11:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism to articles on Okinawa bases

[edit]

I notice that there has been a number of vandal edits to various Okinawa base articles — Futenma, Kadena, etc. This it both from IPs and registered users. Keep an eye out. — ERcheck (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph J. McCarthy

[edit]

I think I've improved the article enough to move up to "B" class on the quality scale. Could you give it a look over and let me know what you think? Windyjarhead 23:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Absolutely, as a fellow Mc and Marine I will do what I can to add to the article but from where I am at it may be difficult. I have a feeling a library in Chicago may be your best bet. Cheers.--Looper5920 07:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal updates, etc.

[edit]

So sorry about your laptop. There are companies who make a cover for the keyboard to help prevent spills from getting into the computer. (iSkin for Macs)

I assume that you were referring to 3/3 for article. Hadn't really thought about it when I started working on it. Just noticed the editing on it, then the GA nom. Does this sound good to you? How about the picture? I agree that the Portal shouldn't feature aviation-related pictures two months in a row. Have any ideas? I spent quite a while this weekend looking through images, but didn't find one that appealed to me.

You are very good at writing the leads for the selected articles, bios, and picture. So, I guess I'll either have to stretch myself here, or hope you find time to write some captions.

— ERcheck (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the Coordination page. I've added the choices. Still debating on which image for 3/3 — both are shown on the March section of the page. Don't have a caption selected for the picture. We haven't had an engineering group featured yet (as far as I remember) — so the picture is good, though I think the article needs to be beefed up. — ERcheck (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Coordinators

[edit]
Hello Looper5920. Thanks for your support at the Military history elections. With your aid I was able to commision this ship to help plunder the coast of Military history. Na, just kidding. If you ever require any astance all you have to do is ask and you will see my ship on the horizon. Kyriakos 08:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hercules Star

[edit]

Thanx, man! I rilly, rilly appreciate it. I must admit that, having waded through the whole of the conflict in Southeast Asia in 1960s and '70s, and now moving well into the mid-1980s, I feel like Seabiscuit coming around the last turn. With the wealth of entries already in place in the 1990s and 2000s, it is only going to get easier to fill out this list. But I have been badly ignoring my updating duties on the Clemson Wiki while I strived to fill out the Hercules loss list...

So it goes - we all only get 24 hours per day...

Mark Sublette 08:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 08:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


BTW, with your focus on Marine Corps aviation, I will point out that the only Hercules accident at MCAS El Toro was the loss of KC-130F BuNo 150685, c.n. 3728, which crash landed there 30 July 70.

Mark Sublette 06:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 06:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal updated

[edit]

The March update for the USMC Portal has been completed. — ERcheck (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you like this month's changes? — ERcheck (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next USMC collaboration?

[edit]

Now that 3/3 has made GA status, I think it is time to put a new article on for Collaboration. It would be great to get a new article to GA status for April. Suggestions? Here are a few:

  1. National Museum of the Marine Corps
  2. Camp Pendleton
  3. Twentynine Palms
  4. United States Marine Corps School of Infantry

— ERcheck (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meet up

[edit]

You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup

Sunday March 4, 2007
5pm
Independence Brew Pub

RSVP

Question on your edits to Welton Ralph Abell

[edit]

You recently made some edits to Welton Ralph Abell. You took WWII and Battle of Saipan out of the infobox; and specifically noted that he saw no action in WWII. However, in his ANC profile, it mentions WWII and Saipan. There seems to be a discrepancy between the ANC bio and your source. — ERcheck (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

was looking at a bio of his that he submitted to the 1st Marine Division Association for the book that chronicled the History ofthe 1st Marie Division. I knew there would be conflicts so I went with the more exclusionary version. Best bet is to find a third source. I'll look through what I have.--Looper5920 10:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to find anything additional on the web, so a look through your books is the best bet. — ERcheck (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

[edit]

The February 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I'd like to be polite, but i don't think you were in trying to delete this artist's page - Please explain further

[edit]

"Non-notable author, books are self-published or from vanity presses." TO HAVE A PAGE REMOVED FOR THE CITED REASON, IS IGNORANT OF THIS ARTISTS WORK - Please do your research. Glen E. Friedman's books and work are respected around the world, As well as his opinions, why would you try to delete the page? WHO ARE YOU to say factual information should be deleted? Stay away from the page if you don't like what he does, don't try to have it deleted. Is this some sort of political assasination you are trying to make?Please give legitimate reasons or help make the page better, sorry if our wiki writing skills are not up to snuff, maybe you can recommend some one to clean it up? But deletion make no sence at all. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.161.111.109 (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Wall of Honor

[edit]

Looper5920, your welcome. The thing is that I believe that Barnstars are great and can really encourage editors, but the community should have a system to honor and give recognition to great contributors and editors such as yourself, because these are the people that we must keep here.

That's why I have decided to honor the editors that I know and whom I consider great Wikipedians with my own Wall of Honor. Cheers! Tony the Marine 02:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wall of Honor

Looper5920

2nd Battalion 7th Marines

[edit]

Looper, check out the "Unit citation" of 2/7. The paragraph refers to 2/9. I was just wondering if the section was accurate with its citations. Tony the Marine 23:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tony, thanks for the heads up. What happened was that I cut, pasted and reworked from you 2/9 page and then forgot to revert the use of 2/9 in the intro. Cheers.--Looper5920 09:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 2007

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of massacres. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. Nposs 06:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Before putting tags on my page why don't you look at the content. Last time I checked the first exception under WP:3RR was for Reverting simple and obvious vandalism, . Why not try reading the article he is referring to first. This guy has 7 edits and I have almost 30,000 and yet you threaten me with a block out of the gate. Do me a favor and stay off my talk page.--Looper5920 06:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:3RR -
"The three-revert rule (often referred to as 3RR) is a policy that applies to all Wikipedians, and is intended to prevent edit warring:
An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. ...
The bottom line: use common sense, and don't participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting multiple times, discuss the matter with other editors. If an action really needs reverting that much, somebody else will probably do it — and that will serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which course of action is preferable. Engaging in dispute resolution or making a request for page protection is often preferred to reverting."
I left the same tag on the other user's page. I was just trying to get both of you to take your disagreement to the talk page where it belonged rather than taking out your disagreements on the article itself. Your comment to effect that "I'll be here all night to revert it" was what led me post the 3RR tags. Nposs 14:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do me a favor and go somewhere else.--Looper5920 22:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation Newsletter delivery

[edit]

The March 2007 issue of the Aviation 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. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal planning

[edit]

Take a look near the bottom of the Coordination page - I've started a list of bios. Could you do the same with articles? e

— ERcheck (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Credit for Real World Images

[edit]
Iraqi soldier on patrol in Baghdad, Iraq
(April 2005).

At some point, the gate keepers of Wikipedia will recognized that ALL images should contain some sort of photo credit. Like any other form of art, a photographer should be given credit for his or her efforts. Additionally, for places such as a war zone, an individual who risk his or her life to capture an image should be noted for their work. There's a big difference between a picture of some mundane location in middle America and a photograph that captures a moment in time on the streets of Baghdad, Iraq.

Photographers and/or photojournalists, recognizing the value of Wikipedia as a place to publish their work, may start becoming major contributors to this growing corner of cyberspace.

Indeed, in regards to written articles, Wikipedia could/would gain greater credibility if significant contributors (i.e. writers/authors) would be required to use their real names. While Wikipedia is not an actual newspaper or book, the idea of attribution remains ones of the major pillars of publishing.

Additionally, in order to save itself from possible...future...Copyright legal headaches, Wikipedia should require that ALL uploaded images contain the author's name. The business folks at Google are finding out that the recent purchase of You Tube came with a host of unresolved internet legal issues.

As Wikipedia moves forward in its development as a new medium of information, a serious discussion needs to take place regarding the attribution of material (i.e. both print and visual) contained within these pages. Only when that happens will Wikipedia move forward to its next level of development.

And finally, in the interest of Wiki-Peace, I've removed ALL the photo credits from each and every submitted caption. Until I reach 1,001 active photo submissions, I'll refrain from battling over the merits of this issue...
v/r
Peter Rimar

In the mood to create a new article?

[edit]

How about an article on Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle? — ERcheck (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Sources:[reply]

— ERcheck (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it is the Cougar that the Marines have ordered as the MRAP. The Buffalo is another vehicle that is much larger and used for going after the IEDs with its claw.--Looper5920 09:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Forces Pacific

[edit]

We are on the same wavelength. I was editing this article while you were -- edit conflict. Is Marine Forces Pacific exactly the same as the WW2 Marine Corps Department of the Pacific? References? History section? — ERcheck (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Winters

[edit]

Hello, you recently reassessed the Richard Winters article. I would appreciate it if, on the associated talk page, you would leave your reasoning with regards to this reassessment from B class to Start class for each of the two WikiProjects listed. Personally, I believe it more than meets the criteria for a B. (WP-MilHist Criteria ;; WP-Bio Criteria) Thanks! --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 17:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Main Page

[edit]

See Main Page DYK. Sgt McDade article. — ERcheck (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, check the two newest items on the USMC Portal "In the news" section. — ERcheck (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Australian Department of Defence still retains copyright to the following photograph: [3]

Could you please verify that you have permission to display this image and that it has been correctly attributed to the copyright holder.

Please refer to these links: [4] [5]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kohai (talk • contribs) 12:20, 25 March 2007

Hercules list complete

[edit]

Well, after months of entries, I believe I have completed the C-130 loss list! Hooray! Huzzah!!

Mark Sublette 22:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 22:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal update for April

[edit]

There are only a few days left. I may be away at the end of the month, so it if you want me to work on the update, we need to complete the update plans asap. Only the biography has a suggestion on the Coordination page. — ERcheck (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can add some ideas to Coordination in the next 24 hours. — ERcheck (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

[edit]

I'm considering nominating Image:4-14 Marines in Fallujah.jpg as a FPC. Tell me if there's any additional info I should know about the pic. I'll nominate it when I get the green light from you. =) Jumping cheese Cont@ct 07:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of like this nomination, but with the human element. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 08:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great. It's a US Gov photo so you don't need my green light. The caption is very specific so there is not much more I can add. Just give me a heads up when you submit it so I can monitor the progress. Cheers.--Looper5920 09:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

[edit]

The March 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Portal ideas - complete

[edit]

Suggestions for all areas in Coordination. No problem if you chose something different in any area. — ERcheck (talk · contribs · count) 05:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin vote

[edit]

Thank-you for the strong support vote for admin. I look forward to continued work on articles in the future. Cla68 15:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Organization of the United States Marine Corps

[edit]

Concerning Organization of the United States Marine Corps — are you thinking of this month? I think the redlinks need to be out of the introductory paragraphs before it is featured as the Portal's article.

BTW, I'm updating the Portal quote now. See Coordination for my other thoughts. (It's now April 1 (UTC).)

— ERcheck (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Marine Corps aircraft squadrons — very nice! How about this for the article selection? — ERcheck (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It never crossed my mind but I think you may be on to something--Looper5920 08:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you made the change. I've sent you some offline comments. — ERcheck (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edit - Why Did You Remove

[edit]

Why did you recently removed a link to an article I attached to your wiki article? [[6]]

Your comments:

(diff) (hist) . . Mutual fund‎; 01:02 . . (-139) . . Looper5920 (Talk | contribs) (→External Links - remove link...decent article but it still is attached to a financial company's website...best left out)

Any external link will be to another company's or organization's website. For example, a link to the MetLife corporate site can be found on relevant wiki articles contained in Wikipedia.

The reasoning that "it is still attached to a financial company's website...best left out" infers that, intrinsically, this is somehow damaging to Wikipedia, yet you can show no reason why the fact that it links to another company/organization website is damaging to Wikipedia users or harmful to anyone in any way.

The reason the link was added was to provide additional information which is not currently available on Wikipedia, and which is unique research (information which is not common knowledge). This is also the reason why the article itself was not modified (because it is an original article). By removing the link, you actually prevent Wikipedia users from benefiting from additional information from this and other related articles.

Please undo your edit.

Dclewis 01:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the information is not contained in the article then please add it and cite it appropriately. What is trying to be avoided is when the page contained links to numerous financial services companies in the external links section in the past. If we add your one link then we should add hundreds of other relevant links from other companies/websites. My advice is to further develop the article vice just adding links.--Looper5920 02:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic job

[edit]

Looper, I took a look at Organization of the United States Marine Corps and you have done a fantastic job. I think the Portal should go up for FA, if it does let me know. Take a look at Puerto Ricans in World War II, it made GA, but I'm thinking of taking to the next level. Would like to here your opinion. Cheers Tony the Marine 05:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rheinwiesenlager

[edit]

You rated the article Rheinwiesenlager without any additional comment. Please could you tell your points of criticism? They could help improve the article. Thw1309 14:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Looper5920/Archive_7&oldid=1146801829"