User talk:Luxomni

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Luxomni, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  *~Daniel~* 03:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Fort Wolters

I appreciate your attention to this article; it's clear you have firsthand knowledge of the place. I pretty much wrote the stub based on the Handbook of Texas after I noticed there was no entry.

I'm fine with your change about the summer camp. For the first suggestion, though, from a copy editing standpoint it should be lowercase e since Air Force Engineers isn't a proper name. (Just as it shouldn't be, for instance, Baylor University Professors.) However, if there was a specific group of engineers there, that would be capitalized, like the Air Force 5th Engineering Battalion or something. After all, the more details you can add, the better.

Thanks, Dmp348 00:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verbum Vincit

The moto "Verbum Vincit" remains the motto for 4th Psychological Operations Group (A), however around 1995 PSYOP became a regiment and was given the regimental crest with the motto "persuade, change, influence" that you see pictured on the PSYOP entry. Glad you like my edits. I just add what I know from my time in. -User:Atfyfe

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Safe_conduct.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Safe_conduct.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then you need to specify who owns the copyright, please. If you got it from a website, then a link to the website where it was taken from with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 01:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to the original source. Could you please make a comment to the fact that you obtained these during your service in Vietnam on the image description page? You can also then remove the no source tag as I am satisfied with this source description. Thank you. --MECU≈talk 17:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stockton, New Jersey

You changed "...the town is presided over by an old inn. The Stockton Inn (formally known as Colligan's Stockton Inn)," to "formerly known". Actually, I meant formally. The correct name is/was the full name. People there actually call it just Colligan's. However since I am not in a position to verify if you may indeed be correct in that it has changed ownership in the last few years or not, I will not revert it. I just wanted to make you aware that not every oddity like that comes from ignorance of the English language, but may indeed be subtlety of usage. Formally is not a corruption of formerly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luxomni (talk • contribs) 02:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Hi Lux, thanks for the note. I agree 'formally known' has quite legitimate uses, but it's also a not altogether uncommon Eggcorn. Don't worry, I don't blindly replace every occurrence I find, but it's entirely possible that I'll get it wrong on occasion. Thanks again, CmdrObot 15:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)