Thanks for posting the photograph of Hamilton Coolidge. He was a brave young man. It adds a lot to the article and his memory.
I have been looking for photographs of the NY National Guard aviation section from the pre-World War I era, especially for anything which would show markings on their Curtis Jenny aircraft. ((NY was actually out in front of the U.S. Army for a while, flying formations when the Army could barely keep anything flying at all.) If you have any ideas where those could be obtained, please let me know. ArdenHathaway 21:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArdenHathaway (talk • contribs)
Hi Bwmoll3 and HAppy New Year!! Was good to talk a few days ago; you will see my initial reorderings at Minnesota Air National Guard, as well as the sources. Would you please take a moment to read WP:Lead? Many of the ANG articles you are writing are ending up with a two-sentence lead, while in accordance with WP:LEADLENGTH it should be at least two paragraphs. Much of the overview section should be moved into the lead. CHeers Buckshot06(talk)23:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the ANG articles as I'm finding them are little more than skeletons or stubs and vary quite significantly in content. The Groups and Squadrons were even less informative. The reformatting I'm performing presently is using what has been already written and providing something more substantial, as well as a common format. I've already gone though most of the Squadrons/Groups/Wings over the past several months and now am working at the ANG State HQ level. It should also be noted that many of the States really haven't published a lot about their histories. Improvements such as you're providing are making them even more informational and much more substantial. Good work :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're doing good work too, but USAF articles here seem to have chronically short leads. Please keep an eye out to make sure they are properly expanded in line with WP:Lead and WP:LEADLENGTH. In regard to the model Minn ANG article, you've only seen the very first dabblings; eventually the whole article structure will be reorganised. Cheers Buckshot06(talk)23:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that your point about limited stuff published is only true for the 'Net. If we were truly researching this, and went to the national level libraries and archives in DC and for the Air Force, and in the state capitals, we'd find enormous amounts - some of the bibliographic entries are visible online. Buckshot06(talk)23:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI Also over in Commons I've been adding and organizing a lot of photos for the squadrons and updating the categories. Then putting a commons link in the state level ANG article to them Bwmoll3 (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another minor bone to pick with you. You write that the individual ANGs are under the jurisdiction of the NGB unless federalised by Presidential order. I think this is wrong; surely they're under their Dept of Military and Veterans' Affairs,or, if you like, the Governor of the state, unless federalised? Your wording seems to imply that before federalisation they're under the direction of a federal entity, which seems nonsensical. Buckshot06(talk)02:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me have your email and I'll send you a communication I have from the AFHRA. Then we can come up with the precise wording for the articles. It comes under the State Military Department (however it is designated), and the various unit commanders are under the Office of the Adjutant General. Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2013
Hello, Bwmoll3. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I have no problem with moving the article to 52d Troop Carrier Wing. I would, however, in addition to making 52d Fighter Wing (Air National Guard) a redirect page retain the Category Fighter Wings of the AAF on the redirect page per WP:RCAT. I've been diverted by populating the AAF group and wing categories lately and belieye they are just about complete,
I think there are other USAF units that are even more extreme cases (including some I've worked on myself and moved), particularly ones that are the result of the consolidations of the early 1980s, where the unit has never been active under its most recent name, like the 37th Tactical Missile Squadron. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An article that you have been involved in editing, 98th Range Wing, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Lineagegeek (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While it might be a convenient parking place, and the AD, P 17 (Gulf War) could be treated the same way, how would you suggest treating the 15th and 16th provisional ADs? I haven't checked the appropriate articles, but it seems that the AD, P, 17 (U Tapao) and AD, P, 57 (Andersen) of the Viet Nam War are more closely related to the regular organizations in the sense that their numbers were chosen deliberatly to echo those of the regular units. Then there's always the AD, P, 1 (Homestead), AD, P, 2 (McCoy) and AD, P, 3 (MacDill) of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Overall, I'm not sure it would solve the problem of representing these short-lived provisional organizations that engaged in or faced the threat of engaging in combat equitably. I wouldn't try to revert it if it were done, though. Lineagegeek (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have a problem as long as it's clear that the designations were used for convenience and there is no shared lineage or history between the organizations. The fact is that the 14th AD was an active Strategic Air Command organization at the time of the 1991 Gulf War, and the 14th AD (Provisional) was strictly a CENTAF organization in 1990/1991. Bwmoll3 (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will put it on my list. But every time I do that I divert from the project I decided was the first thing I was going to do on Wikipedia, which was to bring ADC units up to a standard of accuracy. I thought that would be doable since the command no longer exists and updates would not be a problem, but I haven't even been able to get to all the Fighter Groups (Air Defense) for a first shot. Thankfully, It's only USAF Air Divisions, so I don't have to worry about the ones from the 1920s and 1930s. (Add whatever the Wiki equivalent to a smiley face is) Lineagegeek (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-----Original Message-----
From: HAULMAN, DANIEL L GS-13 USAF AETC AFHRA/RSO
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 11:07 AM
To: bwmoll3
Cc: GAMMA, LYNN O GS-13 USAF AETC AFHRA/RS
Subject: FW: Cuban Missile Crisis Provisional Air Divisions
Mr. Moll:
We have organization record cards on the three provisional air
divisions you listed. The Hq, Air Division Provisional 1 was organized on
10 Nov 1962 at Homestead AFB, Florida, and assigned to the Air Force
Provisional 33 (Fighter Reconnaissance). On 29 Nov 1962, the division was
relieved from assignment to Air Force Provisional 33 and assigned directly
to Tactical Air Command. At the same time, it was attached to the Air Force
Atlantic (ADVON). The Hq, Air Division Provisional 1 was discontinued on 1
Jun 1963. The card contains no information about units assigned to it.
The Hq, Air Division Provisional 2 was also organized on 10 Nov 1962
at McCoy AFB, Florida, and assigned to AF Prov 33 (Ftr Recon). On 29 Nov
1962, the division was relieved from assignment to AFProv 33 and assigned
directly to Tactical Air Command, with attachment to AF Atlantic (ADVON).
The division was discontinued on 1 Jun 1963. The card contains no
information about assigned units.
The Hq, Air Division Provisional 3 was organized on 25 Oct 1962 at
MacDill AFB, Florida, and assigned to AF Prov 33 (Ftr Recon). On 29 Nov
1962, the division was relieved from assignment to 33 AF Prov 33 (Ftr Recon)
and assigned directly to Tactical Air Command, with attachment to AF
Atlantic (ADVON). On 1 Jun 1963, the division was discontinued. As with
the other two provisional air divisions, the organization record card
contains no information about any assigned units.
Please let me know if you received this information. Thank you.
Daniel L. Haulman, PhD
Chief, Organizational Histories Branch
Air Force Historical Research Agency
I had an order of battle (somewhere) that had the units put on alert during the CMC. If I can find it again I'll let you know :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Moll:
Yes, there is an organization record card for the "Hq, AF
Provisional 33 (Ftr Recon). It was organized on 10 Nov 1962 at Homestead
AFB, FL, and assigned to Tactical Air Command, with attachment to AF
Atlantic (Main). The Air Div Prov 1, 2, and 3 were assigned as elements at
the same time. The Hq, AF Provisional 33 (Ftr Recon) was discontinued on 29
Nov 1962. That is all the information on the card.
Dan
Daniel L. Haulman, PhD
Chief, Organizational Histories Branch
Air Force Historical Research Agency
I visited 330th Bombardment Group (VH) purely to clean up The AAF bombardment group category by eliminating the incongruous (VH) by moving the page to 330th Bombardment Group. I see your attempts to do the same in 2010 ended with everyone conceding to the owner. It looks like none of the recommendations then were acted on either. I did some editing out of errors in the infobox and added a hatnote directing anyone who wants to know about the group to the 330th Aircraft Sustainment Wing. I'd like your input before doing a couple of things with the page:
It is assessed as C-Class. In view of the discussions concerning sources (which appear to have been left by listing none at all, rather than the cites the owner had to his own web page). There's also a post there questioning the accuracy of the mission information. I don't see in this circumstance that it could be rated higher than Start. (BTW, somewhere in my garage, I've got a book that compiled all Twentieth Air Force missions. I haven't seen it in 20 years, though).
There's discussion on the Talk page about splitting the article, you commented that you were working on a longer article, but it seems to me that the specialized info in this article makes a split more appropriate. I can't really see a Wiki article with pages devoted to specific missions and aircraft being appropriate for an encyclopedia.
I intend to revisit the page after a while to either be bold and delete the Notable Commanders or post a note on the Talk page announcing my intention to do so on the grounds that none of them are notable. Which course would you recommend?
In summary, I thought I'd mention this because the owner 's behavior in the past makes me think that he might make an issue over these edits (and a downgraded assesment that I will do) and give you an early chance to comment.
PS. I don't think your comments on the owner 's talk page were mean. I don't think he has any idea about what was involved in your pulling the deleted material up to post on the 330th page--Lineagegeek (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
B29Bomber has a private website (I believe this is the site: http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ny330bg/home.htm ) which he basically copied onto Wikipedia. And in his view, that's "his" article here. Woe be to those who edit it without his concurrence.
A few years ago I was creating articles for 20th Air Force (there were only a few at the time), and when it came to the 330th Bomb Group I saw the article, at the time it was "330th Bombardment Group". It's significantly long, and it's basically a listing of every mission the group flew and a list of tail numbers with information about each aircraft. I really didn't know where to start editing it (was actually editing articles from a hospital bed at the time) so I renamed it "List of missions of the 330th Bombardment Group" (or something along those lines), and created a new 330th Bombardment Group article and linked his renamed article in the history section as a hatnote.
That ignited a maelstrom which you've apparently read) as I upset his feelings by having the audacity to rename "his" Wikipedia article. You're correct as a lot of suggestions were made, and I declined the opportunity to be a part of that. From what you've said it's all gone to naught. At the end of it I just threw up my hands and decided to just let sleeping dogs lie, and that's why the article names are the way they are now.. Just some thoughts. Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have been merging operations group and wing articles for AF Reserve wings. I don't think this is correct, since the operations groups involved are different units with separate histories. Although their earlier honors and history have been bestowed on their parent wings, the bestowal is "temporary." and the lineages have not merged. I think a full discussion is in order for the ones already done and any further ones.--Lineagegeek (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I spent a significant amount of time several years ago splitting the OG off into separate articles from the Wing articles. Over time I've thought a lot about this and much of the post Korean War history is redundant, especially after the the implementation of the Objective Organization plan in the early 1990s.
I've completed the Air National Guard and there are some ANG Wings which had World War II Groups, I didn't create a separate article for those OG; just merged them in with the Wing. Started to revise the AFRC units and this was a good opportunity to merge the Troop Carrier Groups, which, although they were combat units and thus notable, really aren't that significant. All of the Operations Group articles I've merged have been restored and lets use this as a discussion and see what the consensus is.Bwmoll3 (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would probably support merger of op group and wing articles, with a proviso on each one that formally in Air Force lineage terms they are still different units. Buckshot06(talk)21:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Without going into the technical stuff about being separate units etc. (although I think that's important), I think there are enough examples like 1st Fighter Wing and 1st Operations Group and 14th Operations Group and 14th Flying Training Wing to indicate it shouldn't be the general rule. 483d Troop Carrier Group and 483d Tactical Airlift Wing may be a more typical example. The 1 FW example shows the problem when the Ops Group has an extensive history independent of the wing and both are cases where the group and were active at different times even after the Hobson Plan implementation. Another problem, which is more hidden and does not show up on Wikipedia is the 311th Fighter Group and the 101st Air Refueling Wing. The lineage of the ops group actually goes elsewhere (why the AFHRA doesn't track ANG lineages) The lineage of the 311th group actually belongs to the 157th Air Refueling Wing. This oddity goes back to 1954 when the 101st Fighter Group was inactivated in the ME ANG and reallotted to the NH ANG and activated and 1960 when the NH unit was redesignated as an Air Transport Group and a spanking new 101st Fighter Group (AD) was alotted to the ME ANG. My reliable independent source for this is from the 1960s and buried right now, so I won't edit this until I can dig it out,
There is merit on both perspectives. A few years ago I went though the active-duty wings and created most of the Operations Group articles, the ones in mention above included. I'd like to suggest that if the Wing/OG have signifcant USAF seperate histories before the Vietnam War era, then lets keep them seperate. Otherwise if the Group was in World War II as an Army Air Forces unit, and the Wing was formed by the USAF after 1947, and no significant difference in the histories afterwards, let's combine them but the article should reflect the seperate histories. The difference is that the Group element was reactivated as an Operations Group in the current Objective Wing organization. 14:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
My .02 is fairly simple. If a Group has a lack of notability or if it would be only notable for WP:ONEEVENT, then it should be merged into it's current (or last) active wing with a redirect to the respective section with a history of the group narrative. If say a group is notable for fighting in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm etc and has notable personnel, and enough other things about it where it could stand on it's own two feet as a page then I don't see why it couldn't be it's own page.—dain-talk16:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Brent! I figured you might be interested in checking out this article, which I researched and created after seeing your merge proposal above. I am always amazed at the places where you can learn something new on this site. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good write. A lot of us use this term, it needed it's own article as many readers likely don't know what the term means. Will take a look Bwmoll3 (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I've been looking at the history for the content of this article and trying to figure out where it came from. It's been a number of years since the text was added, but you are the editor who added it so I'm coming here in case you know something about it. In particular, I'm wondering about content added in this edit which appears to me to be copied from this private (and non-PD) site, rather than the Air Force. The tags down at the bottom of the article claim that some of it comes from the AFHRA and the base's official website, but neither are linked to specific pages and I couldn't find matching text for that particular edit during a search for it yesterday. Might you know anything about where that text originally came from? VernoWhitney (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at your latest changes to Hobson Plan, I note you refer to implementation of the Tri-Deputate organization as early as the 1950s. This isn't accurate. The organization finally implemented by SAC in May 1952 for a couple of newly activating wings and in June for its remaining wings was referred to as the Dual Deputy organization. The Commander of the combat group became the wing Deputy Commander for Operations (DCO) and the commander of the Maintenance & Supply Group became the wing Deputy Commander for Maintenance (DCM). There were only two deputy commanders. In those cases in which an Air Base Group and Medical Group were maintained within the wing, the commanders remained group commanders (although a large number of the air base groups and medical groups were inactivated and replaced by groups assigned directly to air divisions). The Dual Deputy organization was implemented by the other combat commands between 1956 and 1958. Reserve units implemented it in 1959 and ANG units never adopted it (except for the wings on active duty with SAC in 1952).
The Tri-Deputy organization refers to another reorganization that occurred in the 1970s when the DCO and DCM were joined by a wing Deputy Commander for Resources, who was assigned the Civil Engineering Squadron, Supply Squadron, and Transportation Squadron from the wing or Combat Support Group, along with some wing staff agencies like contracting. Lineagegeek (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Getting too long in the tooth to remember all of that. Should have saved my WAPS study guides from the 1970s which outlined all of this... lol. Found an Air University document which detailed the 1970s organizations and it all came back. Regards, Brent Bwmoll3 (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your .02 real quick
I was just stopping by to get your two cents on something real quick since I'm kind of noobish in some regards. So, I tagged 2nd Combat Weather Systems Squadron for what I think is a lack of notability according to WP:MILUNIT. I was wondering if I did things right by tagging it and explaining why I tagged it on the talk page. Also, I noticed a member of the unit created the article as well when I took a look at the article history. Should/could I have done anything else do you think? I appreciate the help/feedback. (I also asked TParis for his input too just to grab another opinion)—dain-talk16:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're fine. I Found this: http://www.afweather.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=15016 about the unit. Appears to be a non-flying support unit for the 1st SOW. It is notable? ... mmm.. sorta, maybe.. probably not. It's likely not been in combat, but we have no lineage information about it, what group it's under, or wing... or a squadron emblem or patch. Given that it's tagged correctly. I'm not really strict about these kinds of things, as most people in the AF serve in support squadrons that aren't notable.. It's likely his unit and he wanted a Wikipedia page about it. Bwmoll3 (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They pretty much stay there as stubs. The guidelines I go by are if they were a combat unit, if they're Radar or Flying Squadrons they're notable. Of the two you mentioned, they are Air National Guard units.. one is a mobile Radar squadron, the other is a Civil Engineering construction squadron. The Radar squadron was activated and deployed along with other ANG units over the past dozen years, along with Supply Squadrons, Dental units and all the other support squadrons so there is an argument for that unit I suppose.... but neither are particularly notable IMO. Bwmoll3 (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An article that you have been involved in editing, 326th Fighter Group, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Lineagegeek (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vote question
Hey Brent, which idea do you support most here. I figured there would be good to ask since it seems like the polling might stall soon, and it might end up being important later down the road. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oklahoma City Air Force Station / Woodward AAF
Seeing as you are the main contributor to the Oklahoma City Air Force Station, what is the reasoning behind this site being the former location of Woodward Army Airfield? The information in the article is quite specific (eg.: "Receiving the Defense Secretary’s approval on July 21, the Air Force exercised a right of return to the former World War II airfield and directed the Army Corps of Engineers to proceed with construction.") however, surely Woodward Army Airfield would've been the Army Airfield just next to the town of Woodward? (This one). The West Woodward Airport article also says that this airport is the location of the Oklahoma City Air Force Station, but that's obviously impossible. I'd just delete the references to the radar station in the airport article and visa-versa but since your information is so specific, even including exact dates, I figured I'd get your input on it first and find out where this is coming from.BabyNuke (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An article that you have been involved in editing, 79th Fighter Group, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Lineagegeek (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
148th Aero Squadron
Nice start. There is a multivolume work published by the Army in the 1930s (It takes 3 CDs in the version I bought). Can't remember the name right now, but I've added some information I transcribed from it. It may be a while before I can dig it out and add citations.
This work differs in its list of stateside stations (it does not list overseas stations). It moves the squadron from Kelly Field to Barron Field in Nov 1917, then to Garden City in February 1918 for embarkation.
It seems unlikely that the squadron was attached to the RAF before arriving in the Zone of Advance in February 1918, but I did not change it. The 4th Pursuit Group was an element of the Air Service, Second US Army. Lineagegeek (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. - Camyoung54talk21:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm away from my reference works until mid April, so what I can edit is limited. A quick glance at the article indicates most of what I'd do would be formatting and adding references. However, I believe there is an error in the Awards section. Not all of the AFOUAs listed were awarded with a "V" device (the first, for example since there was no such award in the 1950s), so the list should be broken into two. If you haven't done it by the time I return home, I'll do it.
I started that discussion as I reverted another user after he added a Disambiguation added to the title. I wanted to get consensus on this as it was the 2d time that was done.
When I was organizing my notes for the 12th Aero Squadron I saw the 402d Bomb Squadron was originally the 12th Reconnaissance Squadron (Heavy), one of the B-17 Reconnaissance Squadrons when it was formed. It also appears that the B-17 squadron adopted the emblem used by the 12th Observation Squadron in the 1920s, as the one illustrated in their article in color is identical to what is shown in a black and white drawing in Clay's US Army Order of Battle 1919-1941 Vol. 3 for the WWI squadron. I'm sure I'll find more of this as I go through the World War I squadrons. Take Care.. Bwmoll3 (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chateaudun du Rhumel
I just visited Chateau-dun-du-Rhumel Airfield to complete the B Class checklist for WP:MILHIST. I was wondering what your source was for splitting Chateaudun (FR:Châteaudun) into two words, and why you thought the hyphens were required. The only split I find is on the Wiki article, although hyphen usage seems evenly divided. (Can't tell by count because Google brings up both versions in searches). --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My limited knowledge of French plus it was likely the spelling I found in Maurer, Maurer (1983). Air Force Combat Units Of World War II. Sounds like a move/renaming is in order. Thanks !! 20:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Looks like Maurer edited Combat Units with just Chateaudun, but includes the whole name with hyphens in Combat Squadrons so I'll go with Chateaudun du Rhumel. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An article that you have been involved in editing, 3d Reconnaissance Squadron, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Lineagegeek (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also Plan to turn 3d Reconnaissance Squadron] into a disambiguation page
And to change the subject to my previous post on your Talk Page, in Combat Units the entry for the 97th Bomb Gp has a spacing hyphen that may be the reason for the Chateau-dun --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An article that you have been involved in editing, 26th Anti-Submarine Wing, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Lineagegeek (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before I merge, I intend to spell out ICBM in the target article name.
Hey :) I don't mean to be difficult on the Area 51 article. We seem to share an interest in military history and I see your articles / edits all over the place! Your contributions are excellent! I'm just trying to keep the Area 51 article as factual as possible because there's so much speculation around this place as it is and I'd hate to see the Area 51 article on wikipedia turning into a source of more speculation. Though a lot of your ideas are probably correct, I believe articles should stick to what can be verified.BabyNuke (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
152d_Airlift_Wing or 152nd_Airlift_Wing
In [edit] you moved it back to 152d Airlift Wing, with the notation "Air Force does not use "nd" suffix". However, someone contacted the help desk indicating that it should be 152nd Airlift Wing. While I do not know, as yet, who contacted the desk, it appears to be someone official. That, of course, is not enough, but I found this page, claiming to be the official site, which uses nd. How do we sort this out? Is it possible it used to be the case that they did not use "nd" but have changed?--SPhilbrick(Talk)17:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An article that you have been involved in editing, 318th Bombardment Squadron, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Lineagegeek (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Buenos dias. Please, if you have time, have a look at my edit[1] the images I add, the external links, for I have gone and photographed the field. Thanks.--Ramon FVelasquez (talk) 09:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have been looking over your article United States Army Border Air Patrol as you requested and find only a couple of items that I would suggest be changed.
The used of "ibid" as used in current reference 13 is not encouraged by Wikipedia because it often leads to broken links to references if the ibid if the original reference is removed for some reason. This happens especially when it happens to be a website link.
Your references section might be a little less confusing if the citations themselves were in one section and the Bibliography were below it. I will use an article I recently wrote as an example. If you will notice, there is a separate section for "Notes" and then another section for those items not available online in a "References cited". This section has the basic information about the publication, but no pages numbers. The footnotes section shows only the author's name and the page number of the reference used.
Of course these are just suggestions for more readable reference sections, nothing that has to be done. I would suggest that if you want articles reviewed in the future that you post them in the MILHIST Project page Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests if what you have written related to military history. Someone experienced in looking at articles will assess your article against B class criteria and sometimes give some suggestions on how to improve the article. Again, not mandatory, but the people that do review are usually pretty helpful.
I have noticed that most of your work deals with the history of the Air Force. Always interesting, although I was never in the Air Force, I was stationed at Bien Hoa Air Base from 1966 to 1968 even though I was in the Army at the time. Air Force chow was 10 times better than Army chow and since I was on separate rations and could mess where I wanted, I generally ate with the Air Force! My father was a Air Cadet during World War II and was stationed at Emporia, KS for ground school at the college and then at Coffeyville Army Air Field, Kelly Army Air Field, Meadows Field at Bakersfield, CA, Frederick Army Air Field, and was discharged at Enid Army Air Field in October of 1945. He never got to complete his training.
Keep up with the good work, you have a series of very fine articles that have been well researched. Cuprum17 (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An article that you have been involved in editing, 104th Aero Squadron, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Lineagegeek (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bwmoll, I know you do a lot of expansion of USAF unit histories and I was wondering if you could help me try to locate some sources for an article I'm working on. I haven't had any luck and I'm wondering if I'm not doing something right. The article is 24th Special Tactics Squadron, I can't seem to find anything on the unit's WW2 history as the 24 Air Corps Interceptor Control Squadron which was founded on 14 October 1941 and re-designated the 24 Fighter Control Squadron on 15 May 1942, it was disbanded two years later on 31 March 1944. Any assistance or advice you could provide would be very very much appreciated. Thank you, — -dainomite22:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a non-flying squadron. I have records on flying and also Radar units but my research notes won't have any lineage and history information for it. However, the Air Force Historical Research Agency likely will. Their email is: AFHRANEWS@maxwell.af.mil An email to that address requesting a "lineage and history" and provide them the information you've provided to me would generate a response. They normally are very efficient and respond within a week. Also let me copy this to Lineagegeek and see if he has any information to help you.... Bwmoll3 (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yessir, I believe it was a non-flying squadron back then as well. All that basic information (the squadron's WW2 name/dates) I got from the 24th STS AFHRA fact sheet. I appreciate the help good sir, I'll email them in a little bit. Cheers, — -dainomite22:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interceptor Control Squadrons began to be formed in late 1941 for assignment to each Pursuit Group (Interceptor). The original ones were given the same number as their intended group of assignment. The 28th Composite Group got one, and there was a 30th at New Orleans AAB. The were designated as Fighter Control Squadrons in March 1942 (this involved some number switching) and at about the same time their usual level of assignment was to a Fighter Wing, Air Defense Wing or Fighter Command. There was some filling in of the gaps in the number system (the 23d Special Tactics Squadron was constituted as 23d Fighter Control Squadron (Special)), but new squadrons formed from 1943 on started being numbered around 90 and higher. One (the 305th) became the 623d AC&W Squadron in 1946 when the AAF started combining the signal and air corps units, but most were disbanded at the end of the war.
The air defense or tactical air control mission was split between the Air Corps and the Signal Corps in WW II. A wing would typically have a Signal Aircraft Warning Battalion (or separate companies) that operated and maintained the associated radar and radio equipment, while the controllers and radio operators would be in the Fighter Control Squadrons. Later, for offensive operations Tactical Air Communications Squadrons were thrown into the mix (many of these have been revived as Air Support Operations Groups or Squadrons).--Lineagegeek (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm currently searching for infos about this abandoned airfield, but I wasn't able to find its actual location all over the net, except for this page you've written. Could you please let me know where you've found it? (BTW, that location seems to be where I'm working at now)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 93d Bomb Squadron may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
Indies, 1 January–1 March 1942; Philippine Islands, 6 January–8 March 1942; Papua, 23 July–[c. 10 November 19421; New Britain, 7–12 August 1942; Japan, 9–19 March 1945; Kobe, Japan, 5 June
: Re-designated '''93d Bombardment Squadron'''[, 1 March 1935
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 22d Aero Squadron may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
[[File:World War I War Service Streamer without inscription.png|150px]]<BR>[[World War I]] ]
An article that you have been involved in editing, 421st Bombardment Squadron, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Lineagegeek (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you posting here and thought I could give you a hand since I saw you frustrated with the javascript stuff. If you go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and look under "editing" the very top check box will be "Remove the VisualEditor from the user interface" so you can click that to opt out also. I hope this helps because I also dislike the visual editor. Cheers, — -dainomite01:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was just casting my Mk. I eyeballs across the 1st Experimental Guided Missiles blah blah article, wot yew mostly writ, and, as an Eglin aficionado, I think this effort by yez is really swell. You really pulled a lot of diverse points nicely into a thread that covers a fairly complex unit history. Nice damn work.
An article that you have been involved in editing, 420th Bombardment Squadron, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Lineagegeek (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This time, both already had articles. I'm close to the end of my self imposed project of disambiguating reconnaissance squadrons of the AAF/USAF, so these merger suggestions may become less frequent.
When I noticed how you moved the emblem of the 420th Bomb Sq on the 920th Air Ref Sq article , I thought I'd start a discussion on how to handle old emblems or patches in USAF unit articles.
To start, I have joined your campaign to put a photo in the image= line of military unit infoboxes and to move the emblems down to <!—Insignia--> section of the box. I've also been adding ETO fuselage codes and various tail markings as a second entry there, but I'm not entirely happy with just putting <big>'''Letters'''</big> there.
The general policy I have been following with old emblems has been to place them in the appropriate segment of the narrative as a left justified thumb and adding aircraft or other photo images as thumbs (automatically right justified) in the same section. I have no real problem with putting the image with the lineage, but it seems to me it is easier (in most cases) to put them in the narrative because the image is sized against a paragraph rather than a line. I also think that "past" emblems should receive less emphasis than the current one by reducing their size no matter where they are.
It strikes me that another alternative would be to put the old emblems neither in the narrative or the lineage, but to include them in the infobox in the <!—Insignia--> section.
Related issues:
Old emblems and patches that are identical to the current emblem except for the title on the scroll:
I'm quite opposed to this (just based on my attitude, but I'm sure I could find a [[WP:SOMETHING OR OTHER]] to support my position). I have gritted my teeth and done nothing about removing them, but I'd be interested in your thoughts on whether any value is added to articles by their inclusion.
Oh, and where did you find the 920th Air Ref Sq KC-135 photo? I was looking for one to be able to move the patch in the infobox. but couldn't find one.
I have a CD I bought some years ago from a gentleman in Holland that has tons of airplane photos, going from World War II (and some previous) to modern era of planes from units that served in Europe. I saw there was a KC-135 from the 375th Bomb Wing and added that to the 920th page. I -think- it's from the 920th, SAC was notorious about not having any kind of unit identification, so that pic must be from the late 80s.
OK about the old unit emblems. At first when I started writing here I put them in galleries, then I got my wrist slapped for that because Wikipedia doesn't like galleries in articles. Then I started to put them in the articles, usually in the section where they were from. That seemed to get a bit cluttered, so in the past year or so I've been sticking them down in the lineage section where there is usually white space and just putting them there. I don't have any really hard thoughts about where to put them. Didn't mean to ruffle any feathers by moving it.. Mea culpa !! :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No ruffled feathers here. I' just a bit of a fan of uniformity or familiarity and was trying to prevent anything that might give the appearance of an editwar in the future. Right now, my problem is more with people who think stubs of WW II units should not be merged with later designations.--Lineagegeek (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this while responding above. With the amount of material on each of the unit[s] covered in the Thunderbirds article, I'd favor a split. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Brent! Last week, I created this article from material on this page when I was slapped with a copyright violation tag from Madmanbot. I looked back to see what user added the material, and it appears as though you added throughout the page copyrighted material back in 2009. Doing some further research, I found something here in this edit, although the Internet Archive isn't showing anything making a link. I checked again to see if this was a fluke, and I discovered This article that was copied onto the Stuttgart Municipal Airport page. After talking to Wizardman, he said that I should get you involved to try to avoid a CCI investigation. The question is, would you be willing to clean up your earlier edits and help us clean this stuff up by searching for everything manually, or would you like to go ahead and have a CCI opened so that a more comprehensive search could be performed? The thing with the latter result is that it could be open for years, but it would also help find any instances beyond the few that we have already discovered. Thanks a lot for your time, and I look forward to hearing back from you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stuttgart Municipal Airport and Marine Corps Air Facility Walnut Ridge have been rewritten. I'll go though the Stateside Army Airfield articles and do the same, getting tired of writing up World War I units anyway, was getting a bit monotonous. Should take a few weeks. Those I wrote a few years ago probably need rewriting anyway as I've got quite a few more resources now I didn't have a few years back Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that works, and you should probably check out some of your earlier expansions to see what else comes up when you have the time. I'm currently in the process of finding out what articles are redirects to civilian airports and need articles over the redirects, so I'll set up a page if you are interested. Right now, I am up to Florida, so it is going to be a long process, but it looks like it will be worth it in the end. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I was just stopping by to discuss a similar problem with you. As noted at my talk page at User talk:Moonriddengirl#RAF Merryfield & possible copyvio, it seems that a good many articles on airfields in the UK may have problematic use of content from UK Airfields of the Ninth. This looks like it could be a pretty serious problem, as there are 62 airfields listed in that book and a sampling shows that content has been taken too closely in a number of them. (See User:Ranger Steve/Sandbox3.) We need to figure out the best way to move forward with this to make sure that all problematic articles are addressed, and I'm unsure if there are issues with other sources or articles. As User:Ktr101 notes, CCI has some challenges. Especially with an editor as prolific as you. :) It does systemize the process, though, and it would take some of the pressure off of you as an individual...at great cost to speed. @Wizardman:, given that you are without doubt currently the most experienced editor on Wikipedia with CCIs, your thoughts would be very welcome. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This goes back to like 6 years ago, the USAAF in England articles were some of the first I wrote, and really haven't gone back to them since. Yes I have that book, and will start to review them to insure that the text in them different enough not to be Copyvios. Bwmoll3 (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate the work you've been doing on addressing these issues. :) However, I'm afraid the problem may be larger than that. As mentioned in updates here, I'm afraid that copying seems to have been going on as recently as 2011. (I don't know if any copying took place after that, as 2011 is my most recent spot-check.) I'm not sure given that if you have understood how we handle text from our sources to avoid issues with copyright policy, non-free content policy and plagiarism. As a general rule of thumb, you should never copy any text from any source without indicating that you are doing so. If the text is non-free (as the vast majority are), material must be limited and marked as an explicit quotation. If the text is free (public domain or compatibly licensed), a more general attribution template may do. (Wikipedia:Plagiarism explains how.)
I think that a WP:CCI is necessary here given the scale of identified issues and the fact that we don't know the parameters of when they began and ended. It's been opened under the date rather than a name, at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130819, and these are not indexed specifically so that they should be excluded in searches by google or other search engines. The purpose of a CCI is entirely to facilitate checking and cleanup; it's so far been a pretty low-drama work area, I'm happy to say. I hope it will remain so. In part to help keep it that way, you will not receive individual notices if issues are discovered in an article, but can watch the pages in the CCI to see when work is being done and if articles may need assistance. I will begin by annotating where I'm aware that cleanup has already occurred.
If you have any questions whatsoever about how we treat non-free text, I am very happy to talk to you about it at length. You're obviously a really dedicated contributor, and the goal here is not to discourage that, just to make sure that we are policy compliant in this area. :)
I note that you seem to have created a series of articles on U. S. squadrons during World War I. If they are similar to the two I have already reviewed for B-Class, it would be relatively simple for you to add the needed touches so I can assess them for B-Class.
Been working on them since the beginning of the year. There are around 40 or so squadron articles, and also ones on the various groups and also air services. Also several of the non-combat Aero Squadrons that later became Air National Guard squadrons, and instructional ones like the 30th Aero Squadron, that became the USAF Thunderbirds. I've also just finished up an article on Camp Crane, which trained the Army Ambulance Corps Sections, I know it's located in my hometown and I wanted to add it for that reason ;) I've noted what you've written and I'll start going though the sources and getting that information to polish them up. Thank you for the comments you've written so far Bwmoll3 (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a natural fit, as I specialize in bios of WWI aces. I've got the background, just don't have interest in writing up American units.
There are currently two articles 401st Air Expeditionary Group and 401st Air Expeditionary Wing. They are the same unit. (the 401st Fighter-Bomber Group and 401st Tactical Fighter Wing were consolidated in 1984). The unit is most recently the 401 AEG and has been at Ramstein since 2008. Apparently USAFE uses either it or the 404th AEG as headquarters for various expeditionary squadrons deployed from time to time in USAFE's area. I'll probably suggest a merge, but I plan to beef up the WW II narratives of the group and its squadrons first. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An article that you have been involved in editing, 887th Tactical Missile Squadron, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Lineagegeek (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
(Sorta surprised that neither the 87th Bomb Sq or Tac Missile Sq had its own article, until today)[reply]
Mr Moll, you obviously work hard and take seriously your Wiki entries but several corrections made have been overridden by you and I would ask that you please refrain from continuing to insist on incorrect data as you are misleading readers on issues that may impact me. Thanks so very much. It's not my intention to question your accuracy on any other page as I respect your interest and time taken to share with others data especially on our military. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.120.99.138 (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Moll, I have posted details on my page to which I have personal knowledge yet you continue to delte them and post incorrect and inaccurate information about me. Why would you do that? Please contact me directly if you have any questions. Thanks. JC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.120.99.138 (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have only posted information that is publicity available on websites such as the University of Miami and Fox News. There are many gossip websites that can by found via Google that have information about Ms Colby that is of uncertain validity, such as her divorce, family information and other personal information that presumably is private and only of interest to those who wish to invade her privacy. That type of information was not posted by myself and is prohibited by the policies of Wikipedia. The references to the information which myself and other Wikipedia editors have used and is in question are shown at the bottom of the article which can be verified by anyone. Bwmoll3 (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the phrase "her husband" when referring to her book, as her relationship to Dr. Marc Wallack is irrelevant to the subject. I've also removed the year 1961 on her birthdate, as it appears to be sensitive information to Ms Colby. However I have retained the biographical information provided by UofM and Fox News that was also removed by persons unknown. I hope this settles any issues with regards to this. Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say so. The 2d Observation Squadron is notable in itself for being one of the units destroyed in the 1942 Battle of the Philippines. Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More Mergers
Again 1985 consolidations affecting USAF Air Refueling Squadrons:
FYI - I am in the 37th TRW. If you need me to get any photos or contact the historians office for anything, let me know.--v/r - TP14:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File source problem with File:Joseph S. Daddona - Allentown Mayor.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Joseph S. Daddona - Allentown Mayor.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Help spread Wikilove by adding {{subst:User:Dainomite/HappyHalloween}} to other users' talk pages whether they be friends, acquaintances or random folks.
November, 2013
Copyright problem: Tulsa Air National Guard Base
Hi Bwmoll3 - I've noted that a section of the article above appears to be copied from globalsecurity.org. I've blanked it. I encourage you to check into it, and to make any necessary corrections. I also strongly encourage a full review of your past contributions. Thank you for all the articles you've provided to Wikipedia! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that, I feel a mite guilty at questioning one point of usage. I note you use the term "probable" for unconfirmed victories. I know that the term was used in World War II, but in my five years of writing WP articles about WWI aces, I don't recall it being used. I believe this usage was indeed a later one than WWI.
Please do not let my niggling disrupt your tremendous contributions.
I don't know why you would want to claim non-victories in the Notes column, but I recommend "unconfirmed", "uncredited", or some variation thereof. Just not "probable", as it is anachronistic.
If I can aid you in any other way while you are working in this little historical niche, please feel you can call on me for such help as I may be able to give.
Understood. It's in the records so I noted it now as "unconfirmed" Thank you for your help. If you see anything else, please let me know so we can make it right. Bwmoll3 (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An article that you have been involved in editing, 98th Range Wing, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Lineagegeek (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
United States Air Force that may simplify what you've been doing to infoboxes when you make other changes.
for your work.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 93d Bomb Squadron may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically List of mayors of Allentown, Pennsylvania, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
— dainomite 15:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
