User talk:John Cline/Archive 2

{{helpme}} It is my belief that this unit should be portrayed as the 56th Field Artillery Command (Pershing) and to omit the (Pershing) Designation is dis serving to the unit itself. If I am wrong I'd like to be shown, otherwise I'd like to see this article improved to include this correction and to provide some better references than those now contained.My76Strat (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there.

I've copied this over from Talk:56th_Field_Artillery_Command. I left the copy there too, but we like to deal with 'helpme' on users own talk pages, so that we can communicate with the person directly - keeping the article discussion page for discussions about the article. Helpme is for 1:1 user help.

Regarding your suggestion - we encourage editors to be bold, and the applicable policy is WP:BRD - bold, revert, discuss. On that basis, I suggest that you make the change. If someone disagrees, they can revert it, and then we can all have a chat about it.

So - feel free to edit 56th Field Artillery Command and add 'Pershing' to the name, as you see fit. To actually re-title the page, just move it to the new name, using the 'move' tab.

For more help, you can either;

• Leave a message on my own talk page; OR
• Use a {{helpme}} - please create a new section at the end of your own talk page, put {{helpme}}, and ask your question - remember to 'sign' your name by putting ~~~~ at the end; OR
• Talk to us live, with this or this.

The last of those is particularly useful - please try it; pop in now and say hello.  Chzz  ►  22:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} Does anyone know how often pages are evaluated on the quality scale? I ask because I have seen articles which seem to be developed beyond the start class they are shown to rate.

There is no fixed timeframe or anything. Any user is welcome to help assess articles - see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment.

If you want to get an assessment for an article that you have written, you could ask in WP:FEED or get a peer review.  Chzz  ►  00:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You last edits to 56th Field Artillery Command appear quite garbled, with content such as "three soldiers of C Battery, 3rd Battalion, 84th Field Artillery were killed in an explosion at Camp Redleg, Heilbronn. " changed to "three soldiers of C Battery, RD Battalion, Th Field Artillery were killed in an explosion at Camp Red leg, Holbein." I am going to revert your last changes until we figure this out. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'The following was copied from the user talk page for Gadget850 and pasted to this location:

I'm not sure what happened either but that was not my intentions. I was going to make mention that these were three of 50 causalities in total for the units history but decided to wait as it was late. I may have started the edit and somehow sidetracked. I thought some information was useful and would reference http://www.coldwar.org/articles/50s/pershing_missiles.asp as a source. I got to go to work right now and will check back when I return. If you get a chance please consider repairing some of it for me and I look forward to checking back when I return.My76Strat (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I remember asking Rob Martin where he got that number— it was an estimate from one of the HHB safety guys. Most of those were auto accidents. The significant incidents were the 1971 helicopter crash at Pegnitz (37 dead) and the Heilbronn explosion. One of these days, I am going to start an article on the 4th Infantry Brigade and add the Pegnitz crash. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

After a thorough review, I see that apparently an unintended spell correction garbled the text of what was the existing article. As I reviewed prior to saving the edit, my focus was on the areas I had tried to append, and I missed the fact I had garbled other text. Having said these things, the opening paragraph and changes made under the "Pershing" heading, are as coherent as I intended after my best effort. I ask that if your time permits, review the opening statement and the Pershing changes and tell me if any are well enough to include, in your opinion, which I respect. Typing is not my best attribute, and until I learn to copy and move blocks of text, restorations by me would be tedious. In that I vested several hours to produce the text I have asked you to review. Anyway thank you for any consideration you give this matter.My76Strat (talk) 04:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have learned to copy blocks of text of earlier mention so freely disregard that portion. I am still keenly interested in other feedback and from other editors as well.My76Strat (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}I am curious as to the consensus view with regard to the above guidelines. Would it be inappropriate for a user to edit content regarding Military history simply for having served in the unit who's history would otherwise be appended?

WP:NPOV is a question of what you say, not who you are. As far as WP:COI goes, I don't think it's a disqualification. Read WP:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest for some tips, consider declaring your connection on the article talk page, and make sure that you are not adding things from your personal knowledge alone - that would be original research. Whatever you add must be verifiable from reliable sources. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a conflict only when you allow your own interests, or those of other individuals or organizations to rise above those of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest. You should note your interests on your user page; you can also add {{user disclosure}}. See my Gadget850/about page for an example. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, John Cline. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, John Cline. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template.    File:Ico specie.png

 Chzz  ►  22:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} I want to add an info box to the talk page for 56th Field Artillery Command as someone has kindly done for me on this page. Currently every "New Section" is automatically added to the info box atop this page and I want to achieve the same effect on the 56th talk as well. Thank you! My76Strat (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify? 56th Field Artillery Command already has an infobox.  Chzz  ►  01:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are referring to the table of contents. The TOC is automatically generated when you have more then three sections. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forced a Table Of Contents per your request. If you want to add one then you can add "__TOC__" to a page. The TOC box is generated when there are multiple sections as mentioned above. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 02:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} In the past I have navigated away from an edit to fact check and verify, and because of a browser freeze ultimately lost my efforts to oblivion. Saving an edit in progress without actually publishing it would prevent loss as well as the multiple edits I sometimes do fearing to navigate away and return. Help me put these practices in the past if you please. Thank you! My76Strat (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit just one section - see Help:Section editing demo

• Edit on a userspace test page first, keep saving all the time, work on it there until ready, then put it into the article - e.g. User:My76Strat/my temp page

• Open pages in a new tab or window

• Use the 'firefox' browser. When you lose your connection, usually you can click 'back' and your edits are still there; it doesn't tend to freeze up, and when it does, 'restore session' usually works.  Chzz  ►  01:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}Is there a way to incorporate the use of gadgets, such as the number of days since/until, or the word of the day, into an article? If so is there a location to import such gadgets from?

{{helpme}} I forgot to sign the above request, Perhaps that is why it has gone unanswered. I would like to use self updating gadgets within an article where appropriate such as number of days since/until, word of the day and others. Is this possible and if so how and where can I find approved gadgets? Thank you My76Strat (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gadgets are primarily used as part of wiki editing. They are not part of an actual article, and I don't see how it would be approriate to have any kind of what you describe above in an article. You might want to take a look at what wikipedia is not and wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site. Let me know if you have further questions. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following was copied from the user talk page for MWOAP:

Thank you for answering the question on my help page. I was primarily interested in the number of days gadget which would allow an article to state for example "It has been X days since the tragic events of September 11, 2001" whereas tomorrow the same article would read "It has been X+1 days since ...". I don't see where that would be inappropriate. Additionally if I choose to create a page such as "The Word of the Day" where I describe the concept and function of this programs intent, I would want to include and demonstrate the gadget in operation. I would certainly weigh the opinions of others if a consensus has determined these things were not in the best interest of Wikipedia. Again thank you for your assistance!My76Strat (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. As per concensus, the notablility standards would not allow your article to go through. Please understand that wikipedia is not a statistics site. You might be able to put one or two of these on your userpage, but not in an article. If you are interested in Wikipedia statistics, see WP:STAT. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, John Cline. You have new messages at MWOAP's talk page.
Message added 20:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

-- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}I added to an article a fact which stated 15 Items. I noticed the reference I included states the fact as fifteen items. Is it more appropriate to spell out a number, or is it a matter of preference? Is it better to follow the example of the reference you use or again simply a matter of choice. And finally is it a better practice to stick with one or the other for consistency within an article depending on which 1 or the other you started with.?My76Strat (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:MOS (at least I'm pretty sure, from memory, didn't check) - you should spell out words less than 10, not above. To an extent it is a matter of editorial preference though, and depends on the specific context. Above all, be consistent within an article.  Chzz  ►  03:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

could you provide an example? Spitfire19 (Talk) 03:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chzz was faster than me, nvm. Spitfire19 (Talk) 03:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Numbers as figures or words;

As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or in words if they are expressed in one or two words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million). This applies to ordinal numbers as well as cardinal numbers. However there are frequent exceptions to these rules.

 Chzz  ►  03:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}Thank you for your response to the above questions. Let me provide a more clear example and follow on. Here is the text I added to the 56th Field Artillery Command article: "The culmination of their duties was the supervised destruction of all but 15 Pershing systems, and to provide supervision of the Soviet's as they destroyed all but 15 of the SS series missile systems which they possessed. The 15 systems excluded by the INF Treaty were made inoperable and authorized for historical reference, such as a museum display." The occurrence of 15 seems in this context seems repetitious. And then as stated I noticed the reference reads like this: "Exhibition of this missile complies with the Intermediate Nuclear Forces agreement between the US and USSR that provided for the preservation of fifteen SS-20 and Pershing II missiles to commemorate the first international agreement to ban an entire class of nuclear arms exhibition." In light of this more clear example please consider an additional comment and also comment on my using 15 three times in a short discourse. Thank you! I forgot to say Thanks last time to my regret as I truly appreciate the help I have received.My76Strat (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would spell out the words for now. Spitfire19 (Talk) 04:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider how to rephrase the section; I don't have time to work out an answer right now; if you want help with the phraseology you could ask in WP:FEED or get a peer review, perhaps.

For more help, you can either;

• Leave a message on my own talk page; OR
• Use another {{helpme}}, OR
• Talk to us live, with this or this.

The last of those is particularly useful - please try it; pop in now and say hello.  Chzz  ►  04:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was reviewing the article on Colin Powell and was reminded of a "list" as I read from Section 2.1 forward. This led me to the following question: When is a list not a list, and shouldn't there at least be a transition in the directly preceding narrative leading to the list? I am Curious to other views towards these and "Thank You in Advance" (TYIA)].My76Strat (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I don't deal with lists. Let me see if I can get someone else to help. Spitfire19 (Talk) 23:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does appear that that list kind of just pops out of the blue. Whether it should stay there or not or the type of transition that should be made depends on whether articles about people with similiar histories have the same thing in their article. Otherwise it may justify removal.Spitfire19 (Talk) 00:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've been invited to comment here... I'd take a look back and ask "Does this information belong in an encyclopedia article?" If the answer is no then the removal is obvious. If the information DOES belong, then the question becomes how it should be formatted. We have a ton of MOS pages that deal with that. I tend not to be an expert on such matters. To the specific question--does a reader have a reasonable expectation that the high points of Colin Powell's military service record be accessible? Sure. Should they be in the main article? Not so sure. I don't really see a good reason to delete it from the encyclopedia, so removing it to a separate summary style breakout list article is probably a reasonable outcome. Hope that helps. Jclemens (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considerable information on this topic is in Wikipedia:Lists; I suggest reading Wikipedia:Embedded list#Lists versus prose, and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists.

I hope that a bit of reading of the above will clarify 'best practice'. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  14:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part of it can be resolved by merging the date of ranks and promotions into one list. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re. NPOV, I answered, but my reply has been archived - my talk page is mad-busy - so I thought I'd copy it here for your convenience. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  07:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious if it would be discouraged to edit articles of Military history simply for having served in the unit who's history would otherwise be appended. I understand being bold but wish to avoid what another may infer as deception perhaps. I am anxious for your opinion.My76Strat (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it will be fine, but I strongly advise you to be up-front about it. So, declare it on the talk page - and it would do no harm at all to ask for a clarification/check on WP:COIN. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  22:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}If it is proper, how can I ask an experienced editor to review an article to determine if it even qualifies as an article? From my lay perspective, Blue book seems lacking in several regards!My76Strat (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an article, it's a disambiguation page. • ɔ ʃ → 01:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}Recently I saw a minor edit at Large Hadron Collider which seemed in good faith. Nevertheless the single change, cause a correctly spelled word to be misspelled. I could have easily corrected the word in edit, or reverted to the previous edit. My question is weather there is any substantial difference to the manner chosen to correct. Perhaps there is a negative connotation to reverts. I am always interested in doing the right thing, so thanks for your expertise.My76Strat (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only difference between clicking 'undo' and then saving, and simply editing and correcting, is that in the former case, the system will fill in the edit-summary for you (WP:UNDO).

Using a really clear edit-summary is the best answer - for example, "Removing good-faith addition which introduced a spelling mistake" or somesuch.

Please note, this is quite different from use of the technical feature rollback, which should only be used for clear vandalism, as the use of it for other things may antagonize.

Thanks for your care and concern - it was a good question!  Chzz  ►  19:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}I like BRD and can accomplish much from this perspective. At the same time I recognize there may exist protocols and etiquette of which I am unaware. Cognizant of these, I wonder, if you are about to edit a bold revision, and you know a contributer is closely involved and well vested in the article, should you invite them to your temp page to preview your intended change as a courtesy in advance. Even if this is never required is it perhaps commonly practiced?My76Strat (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it a 'common practice', but it is an excellent idea, sure. It never hurts to talk to people.  Chzz  ►  23:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} Is it possible to add User:My76Strat/my temp page to show as My temp along with the other 'My' pages now shown atop all pages? If not what is the best shortcut available?My76Strat (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the easiest way is to copy the content of that page to User:My76Strat, so that when you click on your name, you get there. If you don't like that solution, I can write a user script for you. Svick (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you want to list your subpages. There are several ways to do this:

To list subpages

• To see your subpages, select My contributions, scroll to the bottom of the page and select subpages
• Use Special:PrefixIndex to see any subpage
• Create a list using {{Special:PrefixIndex/fullpagename}}
• Create a formatted list with {{List subpages}}
• To add a subpages link to the left toolbar, add this to Special:MyPage/skin.js and purge the page per the instructions at the top of the page:

addOnloadHook( function () {
  addPortletLink("p-tb", wgServer+wgArticlePath.replace("$1", "Special:PrefixIndex/"+wgPageName+"/"), "Subpages", "t-subpages", "See all subpages of this page");
});

To delete subpages

• Add {{db-u1}} to any of your pages to request deletion

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}I am confused as to weather it is a (U.S. State) or a (U.S. state) Currently the article Georgia (U.S. state) shows the latter, to my dismay. There are other references within the article which are shown uncapitalized. What is the appropriate form of presentation for a State?My76Strat (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it's a "state", I believe. Also see U.S. state. • ɔ ʃ → 22:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]