User talk:Mvialt

Iraq

Don't remember. Just assume you're right. Czolgolz 19:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama

That was a good catch, Mvialt. Thanks for contributing. -- Rob C (Alarob) 18:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncategorized Technical Problem

Please stop, you are adding that template to articles that already have categories. That is not what it is for. Thank you. - Taxman Talk 20:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taxman, thanks for catching my three unneccessary {uncategorized} edits yesterday and fixing them.
Appears to be caused by a Wikipedia technical problem. I don't know who to report this to but I can say that, at the time of those edits, using the WP screen preferences I was using, no categories were showing for any of those articles. Something technical must not be working correctly.
So I have worked on debuging it. When I just checked again, after seeing your edits, the categories are still not showing. But after I changed the My preferences/Skin from 'Cologne Blue' to 'MonoBook (default)', the problem went away. So I will certainly not use the other skin any longer. One additional item to note for the technical support folks: there must be other stuff messed up with that skin right now; I notice that my username also does not seem to show up anywhere on the screen when I am logged in using the 'Cologne Blue' skin, but does when I use the 'MonoBook (default)' skin, and it certainly used to with the Cologne Blue skin (which I have used from the beginning when I set up my Wikipedia account). My user id shows on each page now also. I will leave it to others to figure out what is broken. Thanks again for the note. Mvialt 14:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: State-level National Guard units

Well, that depends on what exactly you're trying to keep consistent. Templates can handle some of it, if it's tables and the like; but if it's actual article content, the general convention is to avoid anything more complicated than initial copy-and-pasting, as it's preferable to leave the editors of individual articles with as much freedom to rearrange things as possible. Kirill Lokshin 13:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mvialt, Saw your great start on the Army National Guard at state level. What might save a bit of work further down the track however is changing the copy template a bit to fit the 'State X National Guard', not just 'State X Army National Guard'. Then we'd have a home for any info on the Army and Air National Guards of a particular state, and on any state level info, like these State Joint Task Force HQs. What do you think?? Cheers Buckshot06 03:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understand your point. Could you start some 'Pennsylvannia (X) National Guard' stubs etc as well for the Nat Guards of states overall, like the Connecticut National Guard stub I've done? Cheers Buckshot06 02:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge caution here. Remember that the states may also have naval militia or state guard forces. A state page just for the "national guard" would be misleading in that it would give the impression that these were the only forces available to a state adjutant general. Pharnabazus 02:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pharnabazus. I see your comment. I would doubt that Buckshot06 monitors my talk page. So you may want to put the comment on his talk page. Mvialt 12:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Style of above

You seem to have created a large number of state-level national guard units. Please have a look at WP:MOS. Your introductory sections are way too long and they are identical. While this isn't a paper encyclopedia - maybe you need one State-level national guard units page, discussing the national/state missions etc (anything which stays the same regardless of unit). You can refer every unit article back to that one.

Also: These articles read as WP:OR. Provide secondary (or tertiary) sources or they will end up being nominated for deletion (not by me, I'm too inclusionist).

Your contributions are going well. But I'm sick of adding {{tl:intro length}} Garrie 05:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS just looked at Ohio Army NG - intro there is pretty good.Garrie 05:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PPS - please remove the "________ of soldiers" from your boilerplate. It makes the article look bad - please hide it with the <!-- --> marks until you know the number of troops.

More on state-level NG Units

Hi. I had a solid look at Utah Army National Guard. I have hidden significant chunks of that article which I think should be in an over-riding "state-based national guard" article. This is in the interest of improving the article...

Note, a majority of the people who want the full detail, will be prepared to read several articles to get it. Most of them, will read almost every one of these state-based national guard articles - so wouldn't making them read the same sentence 53 times be fairly annoying?

Everything I've hidden between <!-- and --> marks, should go somewhere else, which every one of these articles can link to.

No, I'm not American but I'm an ex-reservist from Australia. I have specifically stayed away from Australian millitary articles based on WP:BIO - too involved to do it impersonally.Garrie 05:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input GarrieIrons. That article is not principally of my making. I started a very short draft of the thing (see the initial stub of Alabama Army National Guard) and then User:CORNELIUSSEON, one of the members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/United States military history task force, significantly improved my lousy little stub. I think he did a great job on making the article better, and so after a discussion with the project leader of the WikiProject Military history/United States military history task force (Kirill Lokshin) about how best to extend that to additional state-level articles, I just volunteered to do some of the grunt work to make it happen. After using CORNSELLIUSSEON's template to create new pages, I have pretty much just made a number of little incremental edits. By the way, there is a thread called National Guard on the WikiProject Military history/United States military history task force page that will show some of the discussion that got it started. I think the whole process was one of pretty decent Wikipedia consensus.
I can see your point about the initial section of the article being a bit long, but I'm probably the wrong person to have the discussion with since I didn't write it. I will plan to hold off on adding any additional new state-level articles until the great Wikipedia editing-machine-by-consensus decides what to do on this subject. Mvialt 01:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I will drop by there with some comments... regardless of the wishes of a project there are some over-riding guidelines that all projects should aim to comply with. Garrie 03:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gun politics in the United States, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Irish, The Republic and Scots (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's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 12 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add url

for Morris v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers see District of Columbia v. Heller Thx --Frze > talk 19:35, 13 January 2014 (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) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mvialt. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]