User talk:Cuprum17/Archive2016
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
ESU Union
Would either this or this work for this? ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 22:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Corky, I don't think it would hurt to use both, but if you only want one cite then use the first one. When I requested the citation, I was not looking to give anyone a hard time. A statement like that would sooner or later need a cite, so I think the cite strengthens the article. Thanks for finding those cites, I would have been hard pressed to locate something like that. As a side note 42 years ago, in January 1973, I was out looking for a job after graduating with a BSB in December 1972. Spent many hours in Cremer Hall... Unfortunately, 1973 was in the middle of a recession and I interviewed with almost everyone in Topeka and Emporia to no avail. I finally found a sales job with an auto parts company in Independence, KS and stayed with it long enough to own the company. Retired now... Happy New Year and thanks again, Brother. Cuprum17 (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Alrighty, I will do that. I hate the citation needed tags in the articles, so the sooner it can get fixed the better! I didn't think of it as a problem when I added it. Same to you and enjoy your retirement! ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 00:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Oct - Dec 15 Quarterly Article Reviews
|
Military history service award | |
| On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you this for your contribution of 1 FA, A-Class, Peer and/or GA reviews during the period October to December 2015. Thank you for your efforts! AustralianRupert (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC) |
The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Greetings
A review of the SPARS article history suggests you have had a long time interest in the article. My plan was to try and upgrade it from its Stub-class, but as a coutesy I thought I’d touch base with you to see if you would prefer doing this yourself. Pendright (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- I saw your message on the article talk page that you intended to edit the article and I approve of your initiative. The article has several problems and I'm hoping that you will do the subject justice. As a retired Coast Guard Chief Petty Officer, I would like for all articles relating the Coast Guard to reflect well upon the service and be worthy of at least B Class Wikipedia articles. My recent edits of the SPARS article only reflect my concern that the format for the Notes section be organized to show the individual cites are shown in one section and the references they are taken from are displayed in another. In the way I write cites, I use a short form of the citation. For example; if the cite was taken from the reference book: Larzelere, Alex (1997). The Coast Guard at War, Vietnam, 1965–1975. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland. ISBN 978-1-55750-529-3. ...and the particular material that I cited from the reference was on page 15, the citation would look like: Larzelere, p 15. The example of how I would like article citations and references written is from an article that I have authored. I realize that you may have your own citation style in mind and I respect that; I am merely suggesting a style that I find easy to use and one that if additional material is found at a later time it is easily integrated into the existing notes, particularly if the cite is from a reference that is already used. If you need any assistance, have questions, or suggestions, leave me a note on my talk page and I will gladly help. I am usually on Wikipedia at least once a day if only for a few minutes. If you leave a message on my talk page, I automatically get an email informing me of that fact. Thank you for your interest in the article. Cuprum17 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- BTW, thank you for your Navy service during World War II. When I was serving in the Army in Vietnam, I served with many sergeants whose service dated back to WWII and Korea; they were a different breed of men and I learned something of value from each of them. My Coast Guard career came after a twenty year break in service and ended the day I turned 60. Cheers. Cuprum17 (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your detailed response to my note and kind words about my service. Kudos to you as well for yours! Mine was just three years but eventful.
- For what ever it’s worth, I just finished reworking and expanding the article on the WAVES. Having brought it up to B-class, it’s now a Good Article nominee. If you care to check it out, you’ll see I used the Ref Tags method (as you do) for citations rather than the Reference and Note method reflected in the SPARS article. The question now is how to go abut converting the present method to the preferred one. Any ideas? To do the subject justice, as you know, one needs good sources. And my research tells me there are not too many book sources around. Two of the sources I added to the bibliography are good sources but limited, the third one, ‘’Three years Behind the Mast’’ was written back in 1946 by two former SPAR officers and is a good one. BTW, thanks for putting them in order. If you have some incite on particular sources, please let me know.
- As I did with the WAVE article, I like to include some background on who introduced the SPARS bill in congress, what led up to the bill, did it have trouble getting through the congress and so on. Would you happen to know, or could you point me to a source that might know? Thank you for your offer of assistance, which I gladly accept. Pendright (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Looking back over the history of the article WAVES, you have done some really nice organization and the article has a very nice appearance. I'm afraid the sources of information for SPARS are going to be much harder to find. The index page on the Coast Guard Historian's Office website is the starting place for most of my research on Coast Guard subjects. Robert Erwin Johnson gives the program a couple of paragraphs of coverage in his Guardians of the Sea, (1987), ISBN 0-87021-720-8. I have a copy, and no more coverage that Johnson gives on the subject, I can plug in his reference with an appropriate cite after the article is improved by you so that you don't have to find the book, if you wish. I will keep an eye out for resources and be in touch if I come up with anything significant. I can work on converting the style of the Notes section if you wish, just let me know. Cuprum17 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- I welcome your help in converting the citations and for your offer of continued assistance. Thanks! Pendright (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Conversion of existing citations to a standard format and related references is as complete as I can make it. I wish I could find something online about the Munch reference but I haven't had any success so far. I will try a few more tricks. The Coast Guard Historian's website has plenty more material on SPARS...use the references in the article to find the pages. Good Luck and I will keep an eye on my talk page in case you have a question. Personally, I think the article is in good hands. Cuprum17 (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- I welcome your help in converting the citations and for your offer of continued assistance. Thanks! Pendright (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Looking back over the history of the article WAVES, you have done some really nice organization and the article has a very nice appearance. I'm afraid the sources of information for SPARS are going to be much harder to find. The index page on the Coast Guard Historian's Office website is the starting place for most of my research on Coast Guard subjects. Robert Erwin Johnson gives the program a couple of paragraphs of coverage in his Guardians of the Sea, (1987), ISBN 0-87021-720-8. I have a copy, and no more coverage that Johnson gives on the subject, I can plug in his reference with an appropriate cite after the article is improved by you so that you don't have to find the book, if you wish. I will keep an eye out for resources and be in touch if I come up with anything significant. I can work on converting the style of the Notes section if you wish, just let me know. Cuprum17 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your support
|
Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award |
| Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC) |
February 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to United States Armed Forces 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:
- navy/precedence-of-the-navy-and-marines.html] "Precedence of the U.S. Navy and the Marine Corps"], U.S. Department of the Navy. 11 February 2016</ref> the Marine Corps takes precedence due to
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikiproject United States Coast Guard Auxiliary
COASTIE I am (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
SPARS
Three recent edits of SPARS, made by the same editor, are quite puzzling to me. The second two are the result of the first one. Since you have a keen interest in SPARS, I’ thought, perhaps, you might be kind enough to take a look at them. If you feel uncomfortable doing this, I certainly understand. If, on the other hand, you are willing to give it go, here are some particulars. The first edit was on 8 March and I posted my response to it on the editors talk page. You’ll see it there along with the editor’s 10 March answer to my post. In any case thank you. Pendright (talk) 07:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have looked at the editors edits and have conformed his edits and a couple of yours to the established article format. I believe his edits were well intentioned but non-conforming to the exiting style. There is no harm in putting a citation in the middle of a paragraph but it should be at the end of a sentence. I also reformatted several references to established style and did some minor corrections to spacing, punctuation and spelling. I would like to see in the article some information about what kinds of billets the women served in and perhaps where they were stationed. In the last sentence of the Background section I removed a citation and the accompanying reference because the reference had no publication data. If you could find a reference that would support the statement that the SPARS only served in the United States, it would help the article. Thank you for bringing the edits to my attention, I have made what I feel are edits to correct things that could be better about the article. I have done enough "damage" today, but I will keep an eye on the article. Don't hesitate to ask my for assistance if you need it; so far, the article is shaping up nicely. Thank you for your continued edits. Cuprum17 (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your ear and edits. About Note 3: it’s without a page number because Ebert and Hal is not a valid reference. In their book, Crossed Currents, which I have, the index lists three pages that refer to SPARS, but only in passing, nothing else to support the statement, which is: “The act was similar to that of the Navy’s Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service (WAVES).” These are actually my words, which were previously covered under Page 5 of this reference: “A Preliminary Survey of the Development of the Women's Reserve of the United States Coast Guard”. I have substituted the references.
- About this statement: “The SPARS however were only stationed in the United States”: this was an additi0n by the editor. But it’s incorrect; SPARS were eventually stationed in Alaska and Hawaii. I have corrected and expanded the statement, adding a source.
- As I progress, I’ll be including something about billets and assignments and hopefully more.
- Again, thank you for your help, interest, and for leaving the door open. Pendright (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
SPARS article, again
Most of the images needed for the article I’ve ben able to find in the usual manner, but I’d like two more that I can’t find this way. One is of the Biltmore Hotel, Palm Beach Florida, for the Enlisted training section, and a group one of real SPARS for the Women of the SPARS section. The Official Blog of the USCG’s 9th district has one of the Biltmore, and there is a nice clear group image of some SPARS on the Official Blog of the USCG. Under fair use or public domain, could these images be used in the Article? If they were useable, would you consider helping me move them to the article? In any case, thank you.Pendright (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Post the page links to the pictures you need and I will check this out. I would imagine that if the pictures are on a government blog then it would be okay to use them. I'm no expert on download of pictures and getting the permissions right, but I know an editor who is and if I can't, he will probably be able to help. The SPARS article has been filling out nicely under your editorship. I am somewhat concerned that the lead is a little too detailed, but I could be wrong. I have not had a lot of time recently to devote to Wikipedia, but I will stay tuned in on your picture project and see if we can get the two you want up and running. Get me the page links and I will get started. Cuprum17 (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- http://coastguard.dodlive.mil/2009/08/coast-guard-history-spars/ Pendright (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
SPARS for GAN
Perhaps, you’ll favor me with anther of your good deeds. Here’s my story. A recent copyedit of SPARS has cleaned it up a bit more. So, now, I’d like to see whether or not it could stand the scrutiny of a GA review. But, for some reason, when I cut and paste the appropriate wiki code, listed below, to the article’s talk page it doesn’t take properly. I’ve fiddled with it for a week now without any success. Maybe, if time permits, you could figure it out. Thanks! {{subst:SPARS|subtopic=Warfare}} Pendright (talk) 06:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Use {{subst:GAN|subtopic=Warfare}} as the proper markup. I believe this is the same thing that AustralianRupert has suggested on his message to you on his talk page. Good luck on the GAN, you have really shaped the article up nicely. Cuprum17 (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
GA for SPARS
Thanks for the congratulations and for all your help with the article. I’m glad we were ale to tell more of their story. I’ve given no thought to A-Class: do you think it can stand the scrutiny? Pendright (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Pendright: I've only done one A-class article, but getting to GA was the hardest part. I'm sure that it is well written enough to go through an A review, but at the same time I am sure that there are things that would have to be worked out. I can't devote the time to it at this time, so it would have to be you because I doubt any other editors would tackle it because it would be out of their area of interest. Anyway, that is one more article that is in good shape as far as this Coast Guard chief petty officer is concerned. Thank you again for your interest and time given over to the article. Keep on doing what you do best and what you are interested in. If you need my help in the future, you know where I'm at...I check in at least once a day even though I don't edit as much as I used to. (busy restoring a 1946 Willys Jeep CJ-2A) Cuprum17 (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Fortunately, I’ve been able to successfully shepherd two A-class articles and one FC article through the process. But frankly, unless one is going for FC, I’m not sure the A-class effort is wholly productive. The average reader probably could not tell the difference, solong as the GA is reasonably crafted. Interestingly, for some reason, the A-class symbol is not even shown on the article – only the GA classification. Overall, it may be that ones time is better spent in trying to bring an article to GA nomination. Anyway, some thoughts from an old man – I’ll be 91 next month. I’m grateful for your past help and I have enjoyed the interaction that has taken place in the process - thank you. Good luck with your restoration project. Pendright (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Pendright: I salute you, Sir! Not just for your service to Wikipedia, but especially for your service to our beloved country in its time of need. Here's to good health for the both of us. I'm a youngster at 69 but just a kid at heart. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- You’re very kind, thank you! Health is wealth (as they say) and I’m happy we both are sharing in it. At 69, you have many miles yet to travel and hopefully the road ahead has few bumps. Again, thanks for your help on the SPAR article. I notice the Talk page shows it as a GA, but the article page does not. What do you make of this? Pendright (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Pendright: I salute you, Sir! Not just for your service to Wikipedia, but especially for your service to our beloved country in its time of need. Here's to good health for the both of us. I'm a youngster at 69 but just a kid at heart. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Fortunately, I’ve been able to successfully shepherd two A-class articles and one FC article through the process. But frankly, unless one is going for FC, I’m not sure the A-class effort is wholly productive. The average reader probably could not tell the difference, solong as the GA is reasonably crafted. Interestingly, for some reason, the A-class symbol is not even shown on the article – only the GA classification. Overall, it may be that ones time is better spent in trying to bring an article to GA nomination. Anyway, some thoughts from an old man – I’ll be 91 next month. I’m grateful for your past help and I have enjoyed the interaction that has taken place in the process - thank you. Good luck with your restoration project. Pendright (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@Pendright: I don't know how the article class shown in the article is changed. I can only suggest that you contact an administrator on the military history project and maybe he can make sense of it. Cuprum17 (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Military history WikiProject coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
|
You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here! |
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Cuprum17. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!
  
|
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.