This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bahamut0013/Archive_10. |
This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
I see you been promoted to the rank of Sergeant, congrats! I just moved up also, as a Staff Sergeant in the Air Force. I'm due back from deployment in less then 50 days from SW Asia. --Dandvsp (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.
It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).
As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!
Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.
Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Bahamut,
you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.
1) Background of VOTE 2:
In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.
This was VOTE 2;
This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;
2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?
Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.
3) How to help:
Directly below this querying message, please can you;
I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,
Matt Lewis (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to the armor used by the Spanish Navy Marines, yes. The reason why I didn't include them in the article is that I could not find enough reliable information on them (I lost an article I acquired about two years ago, that I could have used). JonCatalán(Talk) 14:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Could you please contact me on my talk page, regarding the so-called 'minor edit' you made to my new article on James M. Masters, Sr.. I'll leave a message there for Bahamut0013. Thanks. --Man on the Roof (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
--Man on the Roof (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I have added in references to (some) the fact tags that you removed in James M. Masters, Sr. I disagree that all of the information was already in the article or cited, specifically the dates of promotion. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 15:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I just came across this article while banging around some info on the Battle of Chosin Reservoir. I am not really in a position to do any research on this guy at the moment but the article needs a whole lot of work. If everything on the page is legit then he deserves it. Was hoping you might be able to dig a little bit. Thanks.--Looper5920 (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated the subject article for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hubert Joseph Kupper. —KuyaBriBriTalk 05:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey there my friend! it is about the 'Category:USMC in the 18th-19th centuries' that was placed on the article "American Colonial Marines". In my opinion, I don't think that this category would apply since this article reflects the other marine units are not tied to the history of the United States Marine Corps. Many of the state navies' marines were a totally different entity, set aside from the Continental Navy and Marines. It was because 1st Continental Congress they didn't want to exhaust, or rely, on the individual states, due to 'supposed' conflicts within each other over funding for naval raiding operations and whatnot. Hence forth, they chartered their own Continental naval services thereafter. Hope I didn't confuse you, it is quite hard to displace all the individual maritime militias that participated in the 'War for Freedom'.—RekonDog (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
RE: So be it...just letting you know beforehand to avoid a backlash; I tend to make enemies everywhere I go, unintentionally of course.—RekonDog (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The January 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
You should thank Flight Time your able to edit freely. Mlpearc (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to give you the heads up up about [1] and [2] -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 19:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
refactored from section header:Won't Happen Again
Sir, I am a busy man, I'm done with subject. There will be no further responces from me GOOD DAY Mlpearc (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
It is sad that we editors have to ensure that articles here meet all required and currently acceptable policies and guidelines, and that we are singled out for blame as a result of our actions when policy and guideline material clash with personal opinions. IMO, Sergeant Robert P Lemiszki Jr, you deserve this for all the crap you have had to put up with since filing the afd nom for flight time.
On a related note, I see talk of potentially recreating the article. If the page does end up deleted I'll inform the other milhist coordinators and keep an eye on the page. Recreation of deleted material is grounds for speedy deletion so unless the others can radically expand upon and improve that article it will be eligible for the axe immediately after it reappears. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Buddy, I'm just trying to tie up some loose ends and then keep an eye on things. Right now, I'm trying to get someone to create a PD tag for the images of the Institute of Puerto Rican Culture, since I have the permission of the Puerto Rican Government (I forwarded said permission to OTRS) and I have one more project.
I want to write an article about the historical "Teatro Puerto Rico" which was located in the South Bronx. The theater was to the Hispanic community in the 1950s what the "Apollo Theater" was to the Black community. There isn't a good article out there about the theater. My father was the MC in it's "golden era" and he prepared a "CD" with an interview, plus he'll be sending me some pictures. The family of Miguel Poventud, whose daughter is a documentary producer wrote to me and told me that she is interested in producing a documentary about the "Teatro Puerto Rico" with my work. So, I have things cut out for me. By the way, I might be in the NY area sometime this fall. Semper FI. Tony the Marine (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
According to this, 39 of you slugs have my page watchlisted... who the hell are all of you stalkers? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 20:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I actually added a section to the main OMT page to address this since I thought it an important point, The ed17 hid the section so as not to scare off potential editors for the project. The hidden section reads:
Thought you might like to know. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Can you point to a picture so I can what you mean? TomStar81 (Talk) 22:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the list of Under Secretaries of the Army. I just got done a series of bio pages on the Under Secretaries of the Navy and the various Assistant Secretaries of the Navy, and I created the Under Secretary of the Army page when I got to Bernard D. Rostker and realized there was no Wikipedia page for the Under Secretary of the Army. I was thinking of also creating Wikipedia pages for each of the Assistant Secretaries of the Army - would you also know where to find lists of the various Assistant Secretaries? Adam sk (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The February 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
There's some updates for you in regards to your graphic request. Feel free to comment there or on my talk page or this page if you wish. -CamT|C 05:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I hope your enjoying the meetup. I wanted to let you know that I have submitted a couple of article for GA, FA or FLC status and thought you might be interesteed. First the Smedley Butler article was submitted for FA. Next John Basilone is pending a GA review and lastly there are 3 lists of Medal of Honor recipients currently pending at FLC. These are the List of Medal of Honor recipients, List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Boxer Rebellion and the List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Vietnam War. These are all pending review and all pertain directly or indirectly to the Corps so I thought I would mention them to you. Please feel free to take a look and add comments if you have the time. --Kumioko (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I forgot about that. Good edit! Hahaha. Lara 00:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Article restored in your userspace per your request. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I purchased a sword a few years ago from the Windless Steel Crafts Sword Company of India, the makers of the Drill Sabers used by the US Marine Corps. I am such a huge fan of swords and love this company's workmanship so much, I checked them out on wiki. No article for them existed, so I tought that I would try to take a "stab" (pun intended) at writing one. I found your name on the Wiki-porject Militry History talk page and thought I could get your opinion on how I could write this without sounding too promotional as a satified customer and owner of one of their fine swords. Armorbearer777 (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I was actually trying to start the process of transwiki-ing it to Wiktionary. Do you know how that is done - the instructions I've been able to find are not very clear. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
... at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop#1967 Marine General Officers Symposium photo is done, I think as good as it's going to get. Please try to figure out the source of the original, otherwise it's probably going to be deleted. Wine Guy~Talk 21:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Might interest you Ironholds (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Please check out: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Series of tubes (3rd nomination). Thanks. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
We were definitely in the Corps at different times. I was in during Desert Storm and we commonly called the giant hot dogs and sausages dog dicks. SitRep was also a common term. ALICE was used to describe your pack, not your belts. Maybe things have changed, but I don't think it was right to undo a valid edit. I'm just as much a Marine as you and I've heard many terms that aren't even on the list, and some of the terms that are on the list are incorrect. But, I would have enough respect for those editors to discuss the situation first before changing them. -Shawn Crapo 04:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sec 1971 (talk • contribs)
You should pull this selected article, since it was just delisted as a FA: Portal:Battleships/Selected article/1 -MBK004 02:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to History of the United States Marine Corps.
If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref>
and one or more <ref name="foo"/>
referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref>
but left the <ref name="foo"/>
, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/>
with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>
; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.
If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 13:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add ((bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer))
to your talk page.
Thanks for pointing those errors out to me. Hey, I need your utmost opinion/wisdom/etc.,...I've been wanting to get the breadth of my suggestions, concerning the article History of the United States Marine Corps. Sorry if this becomes an unexpected burden on your behalf.
I have concluded that approx. 80% of these military-related articles here on Wikipedia (besides any related to military science and equipment), there are always three definitive types of history, all in a composite, unorganized format, as mentioned:
If one was to give any details about the history of a military branch, or its units contained within their operational structures, it would require a huge amount of info and additional details to express the interesting highlights about the Marine Corps and its involvement in helping shape our Country. Plus, it is hard to elaborate chronologically about any entity of the military structure, since many separate military units are going about their own missions, operations, and such, simultaneously--it forces the reader having to browse up and down the article just so to follow-up where one has left off.
I suggest that perhaps, the article be reassembled as such three 'definitives' of history, and of course, without destroying the fabric of the already-contained information. The most perfect example to explain is the article, Advanced Base Force. Although, due to it being a short-lived structure, it was simple to illustrate those three types of history accordingly, and it allowed simple wikilink accessibility. Logically, it also works on grandeur scale. Reasonably, that it is much easier for readers to fundamentally reference a particular historical source based on the USMC, by having three separate articles pertaining to the history of "operations", it's "organizations", and a well-defined "institutional" history--which most of the key events definitively illustrates the formation of the Marine Corps.
I hope that all this didn't come out to be too confusing. Tell me what you think, I'll accept criticism and your most expressed opinions on the matter.—RekonDog (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering how you been and what have you been up too. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Respectively:
I feel bad I could not do more for the article, what limited sources I had simply were not up to the task. I should have listen to that little voice in my head that told me not to go to FAR with the article, alas I realize this too late to be of use. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
TomStar81 (Talk) 03:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow, what a great essay. Didn't even know about it. Thank you for letting me know. The funny thing is that as I read it I realized that there were things that applied to me. I'm just taking a back seat and regrouping for now. I have written as least two or three articles since Dec., but I checking out some of my first articles which I would like to bring up to standard. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The article was userfied a few weeks ago. Hope this helps! (X! · talk) · @998 · 22:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Oh, and if you have to reply, please do it here... I personally despise the "you talk on my page, I talk on yours" mentality and the ((talkback)) template. I have your page watchlisted. :)
try File:USMC convoy.jpg, sorry usuaully I put the name of the file in the delete reason. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
The March 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
We need your help. Please place your image Seabag.jpg to wikimewdia commons. To let use it by wikis in other languages.
Thank you. Inc ru (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
bahamut0013, the winged badge on MajGen Livingston's right breast is the Vietnamese Master Parachute Badge. It's recognisable by the bronze device similar to the palm device on the Cross of Gallantry [the senior badge has a star and the basic badge has no device]. What is strange is that it's worn on his uniform at all as any breast insignia other than pilot/navigator wings are prohibited on a Marine uniform under MCO P1020.34 Paragraph 4002 but perhaps generals are allowed some leeway? Whopper75 (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, devil dog. I'll read up on that article you forwarded to me; I'll find it rewarding and resourceful. By the way, that {USMCmajorcommands} template is quite impressive. Keep up the good work, over and out.RekonDog (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Blieve me, I understand what it is like to have idiots make unwanted comments. I've had my share of those "fans". I'm glad that he/she was blocked. You did what I've done in the past, revert said comments. If you have any more problems of the kind, let me know and I'll handle it. Semper Fi. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Official Bahamut0013 Fan Club signups - only constructive users, please
We can always start an alternative fan club. Those "fans" versus us fans. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Bahamut,
You posted the following message to my talk page:
Hello, I saw your name on Wikipedia:WikiProject Demographics and thought you may be able to help. I've been taking a class on sociology latley, and that sparked my interest in exploring the demographics of the United States Marine Corps. However, I'm not really sure where to go as a starting point... as in, what is demographically relevant? Gender, race/ethnicity, rank, occupational specialty? What should I avoid? What would be redundant to Demographics of the United States? My main reference will be the Marine Corps Almanac (the final chaper in all but the oldest three volumes)... I don't merely want to parrot statistics, but have to walk a fine line against OR and synth. Any insight you might have would be suprememly helpful. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 18:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm flattered that you would ask me, so I'll try to advise you to the best of my ability...
Demographics of the United States Marine Corps and Demography of the United States Marine Corps are interesting topics. Nothing on Wikipedia yet, though. Good choices for new articles.
I enjoy demography, which is the statistical analysis and comparison of populations. But the vocabulary is tricky because of the idiomatic word "demographics". While anything pertaining to demography is "demographically related" or "demographic" in nature, "demographics" is a distinct noun that means "demographic data" and/or the population characteristics that such data show. So, if you submit any demographic (demography-related) papers at school, be very careful not to confuse the term "demographics" with "demography", as that might affect your grade. Analogically, demography is to geography (see Demography of Afghanistan and Geography of Afghanistan) as demographics is to geographic data. Demography is a field or type of content, while demographics is one of the things demography produces, analyzes, and reports.
What is demographically relevant? How appropriate the content you include is depends on whether the article is about the demography of the Marine Corps, or just the statistics themselves (the demographics).
If you include more than demographic statistics in the article, or you include non-USMC stats in the article, it would be better to name the article Demography of the United States Marine Corps. Demography goes beyond simply presenting the statistics on the focal subject (marines). Ask yourself: "Is the article about the USMC statistics themselves, or is it about the Marines as described through statistics? A "demography of" article may contain anything demographically related such as observations, hypotheses, comparisons, demographic analysis, and analytic conclusions. And it may also provide space for the coverage of the topic as a branch of demography, which may have its own background, proponents, and history.
Concerning the demography of the USMC, it doesn't matter what is redundant to the US population, if the redundancy also describes the membership of the Marine Corps or is used for comparison. Exploring how marines compare with the US population is one of the most useful applications of the USMC demographic data. That is, is the USMC a general cross-section of America? (It's not). And if not, how so? Comparing data can answer questions about the differences between populations, such as "Do marines make more than the average American?" To answer that, you need to know what both earn.
Start with the topic's focus (marines). Statistical data about marines can help answer key questions such as "What type of person is most likely to become a marine?" (Sociologically speaking, "Who are the Marines?") Questions about marines, like that one, seem like very good search queries to begin with.
And rather than focusing on a primary source (like the statistics published by the Marine Corps itself), perhaps it would be better to look around at the analyses others have done in the (periodical) literature on the subject (secondary sources). What conclusions did they publish? That's one route to avoid adding "original research" and synthesis of published material that advances a position to a demography article.
Another way is to present two sets of data and let the reader arrive at his or her own conclusions. Like two columns of data, one with Marine demographics, and the other with demographics of the US population.
I hope this helps.
The Transhumanist 20:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The April 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Whenever you have the time, I need for you to do me a favor. Go to the "Military decorations" section in the Capt. Ivan Castro article and place his decorations in the order of importance. Semper Fi. Tony the Marine (talk) 08:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, Bahamut0013! Thought you might be interested in Motto of the Day, a collaborative (and totally voluntary) effort by a group of Wikipedians to create original, inspirational mottos. Have a good motto idea? Share it here, comment on some of the mottos there or just pass this message onto your friends.
MOTD Needs Your Help!
Delivered By –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
No offense imagined, and even if there were some reason to, I'd cut you a lot of slack for bein' a Marine. And for the troubles you seem to be going thru. I figure I owe my freedom to a lot of guys, never having been in the military myself. But, whatever it was, thanks for bein' nice about it. BTW I have somebody in DC that might go and look for us Friendly Person (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor | ||
On behalf of everyone at Operation Majestic Titan, I hereby award you The Barnstar of Good Humor for unleashing the eight ball of giggles, laughter, and operational wisdom on us. Thanks for the laughter. For all participating members of Majestic Titan as of 16 May 2010, TomStar81 (Talk) 05:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC) |
I entered Yellowfootprints.com into the external links of both MCRD pages. Both entries were removed. If I screwed up somehow, please let me know. If there is a better place for the entry, please let me know. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.143.208.253 (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
You said "Review each article[GA], and then I could support this" in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles#No, actually we went through all GA articles and finished reviewing them in March 2010 (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-15/Dispatches). On the other hand, FA never made similar moves nor have any plans on doing so in the near future. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | ||
For creating the navbox for Operation Majestic Titan. It looks like it will prove to be very useful. Try adding cats for each navy, etc.. Buggie111 (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC) |
sweet pic, dude! --Kaini (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The template you created "Template:US Officer ranks collapsed" will soon be nominated for deletion. It is no longer necessary. Please see the discussion at the "Template:US officer ranks" talk page for details. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for removing it. I have this wierd habit of signing after every edit I do, no matter what namspace. See! I'm doing it now! Buggie111 (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Army/Air Force brat, experiences which leave me at a loss sometimes for Marine Corp lingo. I'll file your comment away for future reference, and thanks for the correction, Sergeant.
R/S,
TomStar81 (Talk) 00:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The May 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
-MBK004 20:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The Titan's Cross in Bronze | ||
For being the driving force behind the creation of the battleship portal, for being instrumental in helping us rebuild the main page to its current look, and for the hard work and diligence you have shown to this operation I have the honor of presenting you the Titan's Cross in Bronze on behalf of all members of Operation Majestic Titan. Outstanding work, Bahamut0013! TomStar81 (Talk) 07:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC) |
Hi buddy, your request is justifiable and within reason. I have removed the image from the articles involved and requested it's deletion from "Commons". Semper Fi Tony the Marine (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
[3]. The sources have significantly improved. Hobit (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering about the Abu Gharaib involvement as well. This appears to be practically the only notable thing the company has done. Should I add some information to the Abu Gharaib article and redirect the article? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
How many references are needed to show it lasts for 54 hours not 72?
The best source for the correct information of them all, the website for Paris Island.
http://www.mcrdpi.usmc.mil/training/crucible/index.asp
It's 54 hours. I do stand corrected, that the march is 48 not 40 miles.
I'll redo the wikipedia entry and put the above link in as reference. William 15:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The Engineer Equipment add and taken away are up to date and current to Marine Corps Standards. Any questions please ref Marine Corps MCBULL3000 or T/E Engineer Equipment Per MC manuals and TM's.
Or just call your local Combat Eng Bn or ESB. Semper Fi
--Naplam1345 17:13 29 June 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 22:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC).
in relation to the engineers corps insignia: [4] this is the reason, why i asked my friend about the engineers-thing. i've seen many more marines wearing the pin. and NOT a patch with the castle. i've seen also some marines wearing a velcro with their names, the EGA, rank, blood type embroided on and the castle pinned on it. so i've asked him about and he said, that's common use of the castle pin nowadays.
greetings, patrick explanations and help welcome. Firefly2004 (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The June 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Your signature uses a font color of #000 on a background of #918151, giving a contrast of 5.5:1. This fails the color accessibility standards linked from Wikipedia:Signatures#Appearance and color.[5] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
User:IBen/TB —mono(how's my driving?) 00:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC) (x2) —mono 23:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey bahamut,
It seems nobody raised any objections at the little poll, so feel free to go ahead with the autoupdating tables. If there is something you need help with (like tagging all 545 articles), just gimme a shout. Yoenit (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Bahamut! Just wanted to let you know that your signature is a bit hard to read on a dark monitor. In addition, it isn't very easy to make sense of even if you can read it. You may want to read over Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature and make sure that your signature complies with the guidelines, i.e. isn't confusing or distracting. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Those changes took me a long time to make. For you to just delete them really offended me. You mentioned that the Honor Courage and Commitment card would be better placed on a different page. Well then how's about putting what I wrote there. I actually took the time to photograph my card, and type down every thing that was on it. And you just deleted all of that.
Also, you didn't just undo that 1 change. You undid 4 of my changes. They tell all Marines that "Every Marine is a Rifleman." I added the Rifleman's Creed to the "see also" section. What possibly was your reasoning for removing that?
Also, it is said "Semper Fi" or "Semper Fidelis." That crap you put, "Semper Fi, Mac" was the title of a book about the Marines, the added "Mac" is never used. I was in the Marines for many years, and I never once heard anyone through a "Mac" on the end. The change I made also included a helpful link to the Semper Fidelis page, and you removed it.
I had:
I am really, just very angry. What gives you the right to just delete my changes, who made you king and gaurdian of the page of an originazation I donated years of my life to? And why did you delete my helpful changes? What possibly could be wrong with me adding a link on "Semper Fi" to the "Semper Fidelis page that explains what it means? -- File077 August 5th, 2010 at 1044 EST —Preceding unsigned comment added by File077 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks like from your user pages that you have your hands full, Marine! However I'm posting here for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, Thank you for your service to our country. It may not seem important to a lot of people, but it is damned important to me. Although I retired as a Chief Petty Officer in the Coast Guard, my first service was as a young Army Sergeant in Vietnam...so I have walked a mile or two in combat boots and know the sacrifices made by those who choose to serve. Might fine, Marine! Second, thank you for your comments on User talk:Bearcat relating to his summary deletion of the Creed of the United States Coast Guardsman. I am preparing to put it back out there in the next month with expanded content and references and we'll see if it flies. What ever I post will be encyclopedic and referenced so there won't be a bitch on that account. From a Coast Guardsman to a Marine: Salute! Semper Fidelis and Semper Paratus! Cuprum17 (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I noticed your name as part of the edit history of War artist.
If you please, may I ask you to review my re-write of Military art; and please add this article along with War artist to your watchlist.
I also invite your comments at Talk:Military art#Problematic edits and at Talk:War artist#Taxonomy argument. --Tenmei (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Bahamut0013. Would you mind taking a look at the changes I've made to the 28th Combat Support Hospital (United States) article (which is currently up for AfD)? I had some spare time, so I thought I would try a rewrite. Would you mind adding your opinion (whether it is still delete or if it has changed to keep) on the AfD also? The link is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/28th Combat Support Hospital (United States). Thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know that today, with the creation of the Christopher Nugent (Medal of Honor) article, all Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipients now have an article on Wikipedia. If you do find one thats missing though please let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
This humble servant would like to share this speech made before the Commission of the Latino American Museum, with his friends: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=423585291337 Tony the Marine (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm considering building a portal for ironclads and would like to take advantage of your experience. Any advice? And how did you make that spiffy image for the portal tag?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
|
|
|
July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Can u tell me from where u have the infos of with and height of the M27? Thx--Sanandros (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I translate it from de:M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle, but there no information about the width and height. And I don't know anymore either.--ArikamaI (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
((cite web))
: Missing or empty |title=
(help)