This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cuprum17. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Senior captain may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
The rank of ''[[taewi]]'' (대위)) in the military of [[Comparative military ranks of Korea|North Korea]] and the rank of
was equivalent to a Navy lieutenant commander at the time.<ref name=Johnson17>Johnson, p 17</ref><ref name=<Larzelere17>Larzelere, p 17</ref>
designated as Commander, International Ice Patrol and also assumed command of {{USCGC|Chelan|CG-45)6}}. He commanded the Ice Patrol for the 1939 and 1940 seasons.<ref name="USCG02" />
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hal Moore may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
Cox's office with the West Point appointment<ref name=Guardia18-20>Guardia, pp 18–20</ref><ref name=<Moore/Galloway(2008)159-160>Moore and Galloway (2008), pp 159–160</ref>
Lieutenant Colonel Moore as CO of the 1st Battalion, [[7th Cavalry]] (then in the 3rd (Garry Owen) Brigade, [[1st Cavalry Division (United States)|1st Cavalry Division]]
RE: Your changes to my changes re General Hal Moore.
I made the changes I made because I am General Moore's son (Greg Moore) and I know the actual facts. My dad has no association with "Brown University," for example. Who ever came up with that piece of *? Also, my dad did not graduate from Harvard with a degree in international relations. I graduated from Harvard in 1974 with a degree in English and my dad attended a one year post-doc at the center for international relations. His masters in international affairs came from George Washington University. Please revert back to my corrections on my father's bio. Thanks!!
I have responded to your concerns in an email to your AOL account. Please consider the contents of my email and follow up as I request. I hope to be able to improve the referencing on the article Hal Moore in the future. To answer your immediate concerns, I have removed the reference to Brown University a I was able to locate a reference that states that General Moore graduated from George Washington University. I have also corrected the Harvard information to George Washington and added citations to the same. I am interested in making the article accurate, but need references to do so. Regards. Cuprum17 (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Can you please resend your note to me again at hgmoore@aol.com
Disambiguation link notification for January 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USCGC Point Gammon (WPB-82328), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swift boat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eskridge, Kansas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James M. Harvey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I respect your edit for the Vietnam Service medal page, however the edit I did concerning dates was based on the format that has been rather consistent for American medal articles. I should have been more thorough in my explanation of my undo edit.Mphsmeister (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)memphismeister
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USCGC Tampa (1912), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Collier (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USCGC Unalga (WPG-53), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Neutrality Act and Macedonia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USCGC Walnut (WLB-205), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arabian Gulf (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It wasn't a revert. I assumeD WP:AGF. In any event, I see your point on the citation, and think we should address it; but we should at least reference the book. i know you'll make appropriate changes. The savate I find wholy credible. My uncle was an MP in World War II, and got similar training from Yank Levy, the world's dirtiest fighter." As an MP, he had a confrontation with a championship professional fighter, who he rendered unconscious. But a real look at the book would be great. 7&6=thirteen (☎)23:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Two different versions with two different coauthors, I think. I put both of those in, and I didn't just make it up. Found it somewhere on line at the time. 7&6=thirteen (☎)02:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
wikicheck Autobib for the ISBN shown in the article shows: "Dempsey, Jack, and Frank G. Menke. How to fight tough. Boulder, Colo: Paladin Press, 2002. Print." But if you google "Dempsey How to Fight Tough PDF" you will find another coauthor. For those who are MMA devotees, this is deemed to be a very worthwhile book. 7&6=thirteen (☎)03:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USCGC Oak (WLB-211), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Presidential inauguration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thank you. I's good ot have an unbiased set of eyes look at this. I've been editing it for so long that I can't see it anymore. Lose the forest for the leaves. So to speak. I am also out of ideas on hoiw to expand the article. The WP:DYK seems so close and yet so far. That gets counted and what doesn't is very frustrating. This article has been substantially improved, but getting it to a 5X expansion has been problematical. I knew that when I started, and this proves that one should not have false hopes. there are some sources that are mentioned in the article, including he obituaries, and the magizine articles, but I just don't have them. Oh well. 7&6=thirteen (☎)18:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to James Loy may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
{{quote|He has received the [[Department of Transportation Distinguished Service Medal]], four [[
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USRC Massachusetts (1791), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Master. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The term "National Guard" is proper noun. It is always capitalized. In the way that the term, "Marine" is always capitalized. The reserve is not a proper noun and thus is not capitalized. Please revert your change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srithikdatta (talk • contribs) 22:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
As used in the sentence, I believe that the term "national guard" not capitalized. If you can quote some style book that says that the term should always be capitalized then I will revert my edit, however, I can't guarantee that some other editor won't change the term to small letters in the future. The term "Marine" is sometime capitalized (mostly by Marines) and sometimes not...it depends on the style book used by the writer. (the AP stylebook says no.) In my opinion, the term "National Guard" looks strange placed beside the term "reserves" in the same sentence. I was one of those "reservists" called up for Operation Noble Eagle and we played every bit of an important part in the scheme of things as my brother's "national guard" unit which was also called up after September 11. The national guard is not one big cohesive unit, rather it is a term used to describe the 54 state or territory controlled militias in the organized reserves of the United States Armed Forces. The debate on capitalization will go on in Wikipedia for a long time. Find a source for your statement and I will revert. Cuprum17 (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The entity of the National Guard is overseen by the National Guard Bureau (both the Army and Air components). There is no parallel organization for the reserve components. So the National Guard is cohesive unit. All TAGs of state National Guard HQs are overseen by the NGB. In regards to it looking weird...well that's just how it is. Even in government documents troops are referred to as soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. If can't be found in the dictionary, it capitalized. Even if the Marine arugment doesn't stand. Marine is one word, which is now found in the dictionary. The National Guard is a two word title and thus obviously has to be capitalized. You can change the wording to "guardsmen" and "reservists" if you prefer but if you use the words "National Guard", it has to be capitalized.
I don't necessarily agree, but I will revert rather than carry out a back and forth discussion that doesn't accomplish much in adding the sum total knowledge of Wikipedia. In the meantime, please learn to sign your comments here and else on Wikipedia with the use of four "~" characters after your posts. SineBot will sign for you, but you should get in the habit of doing it yourself as SineBot doesn't always pickup the contexts. Cuprum17 (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USRC Hudson (1893), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Port of New York. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to USRC Manning (1898) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
1926 a hurricane hit south Florida and ''Manning'' was one of nine cutters sent by Commandant {Frederick C. Billard]] to assist with maintaining order, improvising hospitals, searching for those still missing, and
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to USRC Mohawk (1904) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
Tim; "William R. Trigg Co., Richmond VA", Shipyard Index,Shipbuilding History}}</ref>|group=Note}}
Carolina]]<ref name=RoM56 /> The next year on 17 October her patrol was changed to the area from [[Cape Romain, South Carolina[[ to [[Cape Canaveral, Florida]] with a homeport of [[Savannah, Georgia]]. She patrolled this area
Corrected my error. Sorry about that, it got lost in the shuffle. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. See your talk page for my comment, Brother. Cuprum17 (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtfulness! Fr. Kapaun is one of the articles I patrol both as a member of the Military History Project and Project Kansas. I am amazed at the selflessness he displayed in his short military career and was thrilled to learn of his posthumous award of the Medal of Honor. I am not Catholic so I don't know much about the process for sainthood, but if anyone should be eligible it would be Fr. Kapaun. His care of fellow soldiers was heroic and selfless. I will attempt to put the citations together for the article so the bare urls are cited uniformly at some point in the future. Again, thank you for your encouragement. BTW, I loved your Barry Goldwater userbox so much I copied it to my user page!!!Cuprum17 (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Chief, thank you for your service. Although not Wikipedia related may I suggest to you a source of interesting reading, CIMSEC.
No, not at this time...I don't consider myself experienced enough to do GA work, although I do have one GA article to my credit. It was very difficult to get that one article to GA and took an enormous effort to get all the right bells and whistles in the right place and still do my off-Wiki responsibilities. I am comfortable with doing B class work for now and have successfully done many of those, mostly ships articles. Biographies are harder, although I have done several of those also. Right now I would as a intermediate goal like to bring the Kapaun article up to B class a little at a time...and although I am comfortable with the details of his military service, my ignorance of the effort by the Catholic Church to name him as a saint leaves me somewhat apprehensive about tackling the job. After I get the citations uniformly cleaned up, would you be willing to assist me in getting the article to B class? Perhaps, if it were accepted as B class we could work on a GA together on this article at some point in the future? I would really like to see the article as a GA, because I admire the man and his actions...anyway, it is something to consider. Thank you for the CIMSEC link, I found it very interesting and it may even help me in some future Wikipedia articles... Cuprum17 (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
CIMSEC is an association of active duty, retired, and other interested areas which the group writes about. I don't know if they'd pass WP:IRS, they do have an editorial board, but they aren't as well known as Jane's or USNI. But perhaps even if they can't be directly used, they can point us towards useful RSs (as what they write is opinion and analysis).
Passing GA review is not as difficult as you might think, but you're right it does take considerable effort, often more than fifty plus edits to get an article, to a point of being a GA. For instance look at LTG Benjamin Freakley, I was able to get it to GA in 34 edits.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
You have to realize that I am not the only editor that has worked on that article and the interest that I have in the article relates to his military career and his relationship with the state of Kansas. I have no interest in or knowledge of Catholic Church practice or doctrine relating to the steps to sainthood. The changes I made in that part of the article were probably in the form of grammatical changes or changes in the format of references used in that section.
Again, if you feel you have something to add or change about any article on Wikipedia, you are more than welcome to edit that article, provided that the modifications are properly referenced. I should warn you however that changes made by non-registered editors are scrutinized by many registered editors much more closely than those of registered editors. The reason is because there is a very high percentage of the edits made by non-registered editors are vandalism or are not referenced. If you chose to remain non-registered, that is fine as long as your edits conform to Wikipedia standards. Personally, I believe that ALL edits should be made by editors that have registered, but that is just a personal opinion. I would urge you to register and avoid the hassle of editors that routinely remove edits by non-registered users. I don't do that myself, but I do look each edit made by a non-registered user over to make sure it has conformed to policy on the articles that I page patrol; at last count that was over 700 articles to keep track of. Have a profitable day... Cuprum17 (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Let me play devil's advocate. What is the point about an association that is set up for voluntary and community involvement if there evolve within that organization people, mind you whoi gravitate toward higher levels of authority, that take it upon themselves to "routinely remove edits by non-registered users" de facto without regards as to what is salvagable within that contribution and then gang up on that non-username "soon-to-be non-participating" person within WP? Your statement is so fruitful about what it can mean consciously and sibliminally. The intent may not have been particularly what was intended but it certainly is very provoking. Haste makes waste for both the contributor and the subsequent editor and certainly can show a sense of someone claiming possession of a community asset. Nothing implied toward any one in particular but certainly a sense of what some seem to display on WP and are backed up by other editors of a similar thought wave. But in hindsight there have been instances where an editor with a seamingly bountious knowlege of WK policy and guidelines tripping over themselves when someone else calls attention to their zealous proponent of points in order to "win" in a situation that is not meant for any "one" person to lose. It is just unfortunate for all those eduitors that are a hassle.66.74.176.59 (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
If the material you post to any article is properly referenced, then I won't have a problem with it. I can not speak for other editors reactions to your postings. Cuprum17 (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USRC Manning (1898), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Attu, Atka and Michael Healy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I'm not familiar with the term "TA" used in the context of the header for this section which you have created on my talk page. What does that refer to? As for your question, other than financial backing, no other country besides the United States has done the actual patrol work. This was part of the agreement at the first International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. (This does not relieve the operator of ANY vessel that spots an obstruction to navigation of the responsibility to report the position of the hazard to the proper authorities.) The United States would do the actual patrol work and other signatories to the convention treaty would provide the funds for the patrol work to be done. The first patrols were conducted by the U.S. Navy during the remainder of the 1912 North Atlantic ice season before the first Convention was held. The next year, the U.S. Navy claimed they could not spare the vessels to conduct patrol work so the U.S. Revenue Cutter Service was assigned the patrol work. This patrol work was based out of Halifax, Newfoundland and I would assume that the basing there might have been provided by the Canadian government but I have not found any documentation for that instance. The RCS and its successor agency (U.S. coast Guard) have conducted the International Ice Patrol each year since 1913 with the exception of the war years. (1917-1918 and 1941-1945) using both cutters and aircraft for patrol work. Recent use of satellite imagery has enhanced the availability of information concerning current ice conditions in the North Atlantic. While the use of cutters to patrol has been phased out, the Coast Guard Air Detachment Argentia, Newfoundland does the actual patrol work while the headquarters of the IIP is at New London, Connecticut.
All of this information is beyond the scope of the article USCGC Seneca (1908) but it is linked in the article if the reader wants to know more about how the IIP is operated and funded.
If you have any material you feel would add to the article, please do so; however, keep in mind that the additions must be referenced properly. I do not "own" the article and my interest is merely that of a retired Coast Guardsman wanting to make sure that articles on Wikipedia that refer to the Revenue Cutter Service or the Coast Guard are accurate. Cuprum17 (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited USRC Forward (1842), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Severn River and Benjamin Butler. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Please sign your edits on a talk page...this is done by inserting four ~ characters after your post, thusly, ~~~~, this will identify you without Sinebot doing it for you.
I am going to assume that by "MVAC" you are discussing your edit on the Military Assistance Command Vietnam, (MACV) page. I removed your edit because it is not referenced. If you have a good reliable source for that information and can cite the source, I will let the information stand, if you can't provide a source, any editor may remove the unsourced material. While I can't argue with the content of what was posted, without a source, it might as well be hearsay. I spent 26 months in Vietnam, some of it at MACV, and I have plenty that I could add to the article, however it isn't sourced. First person accounts are not a valid reference. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for guidance. Cuprum17 (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Yup, MACV. Instead of removing my contributions without explanation you could have added "citation needed"--especially if you were there yourself and know that the information wasn't false. A quick Google search brought up a bunch of potential sources (http://www.one-tab.com/page/3fMa3zyuRBCrS4Guk8wqAQ). Anyways, thank you for your military service, and take care! Yasmeh (talk) 06:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the United States Coast Guard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boatswain's Mate. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I made the changes to the history side as best as I could. Hopefully that should be good for now. Hopefully others can contribute as needed.Dalehawaii (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Much better, although there is still some work to be done. I will try to put an eyeball on it later. Suggest you put it in your watchlist for edits by other editors including myself so that you can track changes in the article. I will attempt to reformat the references for the entire article at some point. Thanks again... Cuprum17 (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks...I'm actually busy with work (brings home the bacon) so finding time between work, the Auxiliary, and Wikipedia is a challenge. Please feel free to edit (as what one would expect for a Wiki environment). Any help to make the page better is always appreciated. Hopefully what I added is a good start. Dalehawaii (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Apologies if you're one of those who detests these templates.
Hello, Cuprum17. You have new messages at Ykraps's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81
My bad. I will correct that post haste. I apparently wasn't tracking well when I edited to the article. Normally I am used to working on articles where I have set up the citation scheme where the citation itself is in one section and a list of the reference works used with the complete information is in a separate section as in the example article Coast Guard Squadron One. In my opinion, the citations look neater because only the author and page number show for each cite. If the reader wants to know the rest of the publication information, they only have to look in the "References used" section for the website or publication information. In the Corwin article I put in the citation and then I would guess that I got distracted about that time and didn't add the other necessary information. Thanks for noticing the flub, I am on my way to correct it now. Incidentally, Evans is a very readable, though older source of information on the history of the Coast Guard, which is why I am interested in the Corwin article. From looking at your profile I would say that your interests lie in the history of Alaska. I think it is neat when editors interest intersect at one article. I have also edited many of the articles on the the Revenue Cutter Service involvement with the Overland Relief Expedition and other articles where various other USRCS or Coast Guard cutters have served in Alaskan waters. Have a great day. Cuprum17 (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
