User talk:Bahamut0013
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
|
[edit] Great navbox
Great work on the USMC navbox, keep it up! --Rhetth (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Battle of Iwo Jima
I thought you might be interested that we almost have this up to featured list status. Take a look and let me know if you have any suggestions for making it better.--Kumioko (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] who rates the USMC navbox?
I would say John Glenn. He had an outsanding military career. He participated in aerial combat during the Korean War and was still serving in the Corps when he made his historical space flight. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] US Navy navbox
Hey Bahamut! I noticed that you're putting {{US Navy navbox}} onto many ship, class, and list articles. I think that the box is very general, and probably shouldn't go on articles on very limited topics. I've started a discussion about it at the WP:SHIPS talk page, here. Would you come and talk about it with us, and hold off on placing the box on more articles until some consensus is reached? Thanks! TomTheHand (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] List of Medal of Honor recipients
I wanted to let you know that I submitted this list as a featured list candidate. If you have any comments or if you want to vote on whether it should or should not be a featured list please go to the its page.--Kumioko (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] GI glasses/Birth Control Glasses
Hello, I just got the message you left me yesterday. I am sorry I did not notice your suggestion back in December, as I see from checking the history is when this idea was introduced. As you can see, my creation of the 'gi glasses' article (Nov6 06) precedes the creation of 'birth control glasses' (Mar22 07). So if anything is a 'direct duplicate' it would be the BCG article, not the GI glasses article that precedes it. If someone has chosen to develope the BCG article more than the GI glasses article, that does not necessarily mean that should be the name the article is hosted under. Firstly, is there any proof that 'BCG' is actually an official designation, and not a slang term?
Only one article, about.com, is referenced in this article. That is the sources I used when originally creating the GI glasses article. You will find in reading that, that in the paragraph on glasses, he initially refers to them as GI glasses. 'Birth Control Glasses' is never used at all in all caps like this. It confuses me greatly why this would be chosen as the name. He mentions "In fact, most people call them "BC Glasses," or "birth control glasses". Those are slang terms, it isn't proper to name an article after slang terms, but rather a proper term for the glasses. Their slangs and implications should only be a footnote. The most important factor about the glasses is not that they repel chicks, but that they are sturdy frames that protect a soldier's face. I'm proposing we move it back to GI glasses' its original home, and have all these other terms redirect to that. Tyciol (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Navbox
I have moved US Air Force navbox to Template:US Air Force navbox. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Military Barnstar
In appreciation of the excellent work you've done on the navboxes for all the US military branches I'd like to present you with a military barnstar.Ndunruh (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)
The March 2008 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) 00:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Pennsylvania during the American Revolutionary War
Regarding your edit to the template above, is there a code issue with the template? First date (1774) renders as '1774 in italics (and leading apostrophe), rather than just as 1774. Alphageekpa (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Recurring elements of 8-bit Theater
Going by what you said, really, that entire section should just be deleted and the stuff can be moved to the bios. Especially the two about BM's hatred of Fighter and Garland's impophobia. --Jopasopa (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, you never got back to me on this. :( --Jopasopa (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:BlackBelt(8bit).jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:BlackBelt(8bit).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BigrTex 02:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:WM(8bit).jpg
I have tagged Image:WM(8bit).jpg as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. BigrTex 02:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Lich(8bit).jpg
I have tagged Image:Lich(8bit).jpg as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. BigrTex 02:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Kary(8bit).jpg
I have tagged Image:Kary(8bit).jpg as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. BigrTex 02:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Muffin(8bit).jpg
I have tagged Image:Muffin(8bit).jpg as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. BigrTex 02:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Steve_Gary(8bit).jpg
I have tagged Image:Steve_Gary(8bit).jpg as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. BigrTex 02:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oswald/JFK"most often thought to have" in USMC article
Why'd you change the language back to the unnecessarily vague one? For the purposes of the article, the shorter version is perfectly acceptable. It's not an article about the assassination. --Mmx1 (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)
The April 2008 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) 00:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism to your talk page
Glad to see that Rlevse has taken care of the IP vandalizing your page. Please feel free to drop a notd to me or to him the next time it happens. You can also drop a note to WP:AIV. A longer block could be in store next time around. — ERcheck (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- A longer block was just placed on the 132.79.13.15 address. Because of the pattern of attacks on your talk page, I went ahead and blocked that address for a week.
- The WHOIS I ran only resolved back to the Army National Guard Bureau; the talk page is tagged to identify it as a shared IP from there. —C.Fred (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- If the vandalism starts back after the block expires and is all coming from the same address, the next step would be to just extend the block to one month, then six. If it starts again from a different address, that address would also be blocked.
- The secondary option would be to file a report with the site's admin contact. On the one hand, given the nature of the comments, they might be inclined to pursue the person behind the vandalism for misuse of the Internet access and/or other misconduct. On the other hand, I suspect that computer has some nature of public access where they might not be able to determine who was using it. —C.Fred (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- The harrassment from the same IP address is unacceptable. I've set a block for 1 month. — ERcheck (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Front and Center
Hey Marine, this is in appreciation for all of the hard work put forth on Marine Corps related articles. Semper Fidelis.--Looper5920 (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Response from User:RekonDog
I would greatly appreciate your help on the editting part, I am very new to wiki and the help portion of this wiki site is way too complex for me to begin...As for now, I really plan on reconstructing the former page that I posted awhile back; since there are many topics that I feel are pertinent information, too much to leave out.
I am not sure how to properly use the reference because I plan on including refs from MARADMINS Navy and Marine Doctrines and so on. All the information that I typed in so far is from my own experiences and from books I bought or borrowed. I haven't recited any thing from any other sources but I would plan on doing so as long as I don't tarnish the copywrite rule.
I wouldn't need any help editing now but I will call you in the future once I think I elaborated enough of Force Recon. It would just confuse me right now; as I am already half lost in this article.
Semper Fi, RekonDog (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
The May 2008 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) 23:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] USN aircraft designations
Hi Bahamut - I generally titled these templates as USN designations since (as I understand it) that was the service that actually issued the designations (through BuAer), and it also meant (a) a uniform approach to these templates, whether they included aircraft operated by the USMC or not and (b) avoided having to research whether there were or were not aircraft operated by the USMC amongst those listed on the templates before titling the templates. That being said, I have no strong feelings on the issue one way or the other, and if you think that adding "/UMSC" to any or all of them would be more suitable, then please go right ahead. Thanks for the heads up though! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I'd be wary of changing these to the mil navbox, since these templates are always used in conjunction with other aviation templates (such as the aircraft's manufacturer, and a generic aviation template that links aircraft with airports, airlines, and air forces); this means that any future changes to the mil navbox template could cause serious disruption to articles unless the generic navbox template was changed in the same way at the same time. Since (in its default state) the mil navbox looks identical to the generic navbox, I'm wondering what the advantage to changing would be anyway? --Rlandmann (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
|
| |
