User talk:EagleWSO
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
==Welcome== Hello EagleWSO and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad you've chosen to join us. This is a great project with lots of dedicated people, which might seem intimidating at times, but don't let anything discourage you. Be bold!, explore, and contribute. If you want to learn more,
Wikipedia:Bootcamp teaches you the basics quickly,
Wikipedia:Tutorial is more in-depth, and
Wikipedia:Topical index is exhaustive.
The following links might also come in handy:
Glossary
FAQ
Help
Manual of Style
Five Pillars of Wikipedia
Float around for awhile until you find something that tickles your fancy. One easy way to do this is to hit the random page button in the navigation bar to the left. There are also many great committees and groups that focus on particular jobs. My personal favorite stomping grounds are Wikipedia:Translation into English and Wikipedia:Cleanup for sloppy articles. Finally, the Wikimedia Foundation has several other wiki projects that you might enjoy.
There are a few crucial points to keep in mind when editing. Be civil with users, strive to maintain a neutral point of view, verify your information, and show good etiquette like signing your comments with four tildes like this: ~~~~ If you have any more questions, always feel free to ask me anything on my talk page or ask the true experts at Wikipedia:Help desk. Again, welcome! -- Draeco 22:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Army unit names
I'm agnostic on changing all the "2nd"s and "3rd"s to "2d"s and "3d"s, though it seems like a lot of work. But why change the "U.S. *th Infantry Regiment"s? Don't any other armies have such units?
—wwoods 02:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I am not agnostic on changing the "2nd"s and "3rds" of US military units to "2d"s and "3d"s. I am curious as to the justification for doing so. For example, the US 82nd Airborne Division identifies itself with a 82nd and not a 82d. I would simply revert it, but want to find out your reasoning first. If the issue is US English vs UK English, I believe we need to stick to US English for articles originally written in US English (especially when they concern US military units). --Habap 16:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- I have raised this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Non-standard ordinal abbreviations. Your comments are welcome. Susvolans ⇔ 17:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- When you moved the 82d Airborne page you left about 75 double redirects. I have fixed these to link to the 82nd Airborne redirect page (created from your page move). Pending the outcome of the 82d vs 82nd the links can be redirected or relinked to which ever is the final name. Kaiserb 05:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Army unit names
Please immediately give some justifiation for moving many many US army names or they will have to be restored to their original names. You must show that the new names are the generally accepted ones--File Éireann 14:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Kindly give justification for changing the unit name of 332nd Engineer Regiment to 332d. I have official U.S. Army photos and documents which name the unit as 332nd (i.e. with the "n"). While I have seen the 332d variant, it does not agree with the unit name kept with the U.S. Army Center for Military History. The suffix will be restored unless definite justification can be made for the edit. Mfields1.
- Many people unfamiliar with the U.S. military "policy" of using 2d instead of 2nd are going to be bothered by your changes. I was until I checked with my copies of the WWII Army History "green books" and found that they followed that policy as well. You might want to edit your user page to mention why you are doing it. This is a collaborative effort here and communicating such things directly is useful. John (Jwy) 20:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Empty articles
Please do not create articles which are devoid of text or other content, such as 12th_Infantry_Regiment, 8th_Infantry_Regiment, 47th_Infantry_Regiment, and 325th_Infantry_Regiment among others. Whether or not you intended to add content to those articles later, the Wikipedia:Stub guideline page offers some tips that will be helpful for creating new pages. Empty articles may be tagged for speedy deletion. - choster 19:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Camouflage Peer Review
Hello, you once edited Camouflage. You might be interested to know, this article has been nominated for peer peer review. novacatz 03:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Naval Air Station Oceana
You changed the number of F-14 squadrons from three to two, but didn't change the overall total number of squadrons. I assume that your intentions were good, so I thought I would drop you a line to find out whether you have a source for your change and you just forgot to fix the total, or if you're not sure about your change and the total is correct as it is. The air station's homepage actually lists 17 squadrons, so I'll wait a little while to hear back from you before I revert the change. Kafziel 05:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The number of F-14 VFs is down to two. This I know from mulitple USN PA releases and thus edited. I don't know nor can I find the number of F-18 VFA right now, but if I count the number of VF/VFA/VFCs listed on the NAS Oceana wiki page it totals to 16 so I don't know where the difference between the number of sqdns on Wiki and NAS Oceana is. EagleWSO 07:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hm. Weird. Okay, well, I'll try to figure something out this weekend.
- Hey, I see you went to DLI. Good times. Kafziel 16:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for cleaning up 82d article
I'd like to fill in a lot of the empty AF squadron, Wings, groups and NAFs. I notice you have done a lot of got work in that department. I appreciate the effort. Good to see a fellow DLI alumni help out with Wikipedia Muj0 16:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
